Patna High CourtCWJC/13170/2012disposed

Mohammad Fazlur Rehman v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-30Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13170 of 2012 ====================================================== Mohammad Fazlur Rehman S/O Late Abdus Sakur Resident Of VillageKarimpur, P.O.- Macori, Via- Sankarpur, Imamganj, District- Patna Now Retired As Headmaster Middle School Lala Bhadsara, Vikram- Ii, DistrictPatna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

2. Director, Primary Education, Patna, Bihar

3. District Magistrate, Patna, Bihar

4. District Programme Officer, (Earlier Known As District Superintendent Of Education) Patna

5. Headmaster, Middle School, Lala Bhadsara, Vikram, Patna

6. Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Patna City .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, AC to SC 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-01-2016 In view of previous order dated 25.7.2012, State counsel submits that the petitioner has been paid all the admissible retiral dues. He has produced a letter dated 20.1.2015 of the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Patna to submit that the petitioner has been granted Time bond promotion with effect from 15.1.1985 and a draft of Rs. 1,37,425/- was already issued in his favour. He further submits that an assistant teacher is not entitled to the benefits of ACP as per Rule 1(2) of 2003 Rules. A copy of relevant rules has been annexed as Annexure D to the counter affidavit. State counsel also submits that the petitioner has already been paid eighteen lacks towards his retiral dues.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13170 of 2012 (4) dt.30-01-2016 2/2 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the respondents have already redressed the grievances of the petitioner as they have already paid his retiral dues. However, if any amount is still remained unsettled, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a representation with specific details and documents to the authorities concerned. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Shashi.