Patna High CourtCWJC/15745/2016disposed

Devendra Nath Rai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-07-18Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15745 of 2016 =========================================================== Devendra Nath Rai, Son of Late Ram Bachan Rai, resident of Village- Hathopur, Police Station- Daraunda, District- Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chapra, District Saran at Chapra.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Chapra, District Saran at Chapra.

4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna.

5. The Treasury Officer, Siwan.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Md. Irshad, A.C. to S.C. 1 For the Respondent no. 4 :

Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and Accountant General.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following relief:

"That this is an application for issuance of writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner as per the 6th Pay Revision Committee report and further to fix the pension on the basis of revised scale of pay and pay all the benefits on the revised scale of pay which is not paid to the petitioner till 1.6.2007 and further direct to recalculate the arrears of the petitioner and pay forthwith and further for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the grievance

Patna High Court CWJC No.15745 of 2016 dt.18-07-2018 2/2 of the petitioner has been redressed. However, the Court feels that there is no proper explanation on behalf of the Treasury Officer, Siwan with regard to the delay in him forwarding the authority for revision of pension. The Court, thus, was of the view that probably the matter requires further pursuing.

4. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is satisfied having received his dues.

5. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U