Khusi Das v. The Patna Municipal Corpn.Andors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.526 of 2009 ====================================================== Khusi Das, son of Sri Bharat Das, resident of Jakkanpur, Police StationGardanibagh, District- Patna, presently working as Safai Mazdoor, Ward no.16, New Capital Circle, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Patna Municipal Corporation through its Secretary

2. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna

3. The Executive Officer, New Capital Circle, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna

4. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr.

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-05-2017 Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondent/Patna Municipal Corporation. The petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to direct the Respondents to make payment of difference of dearness allowance and also the arrears of pay on account of revision of Pay Scale after 6th Pay Revision. In this case, counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of Respondent nos.2 and 3 and in paragraph-4 of the supplementary counter affidavit, a

Patna High Court CWJC No.526 of 2009 (9) dt.16-05-2017 2/2 specific statement has been made that difference of D.A. from 01.07.1993 to 31.10.2004 to the tune of Rs.30, 001/- and difference of salary on account of revision of pay from 01.04.1997 to 31.10.2004 to the tune of Rs.1,04,924/- have already been paid to the petitioner through R.T.G.S. It has also been indicated that besides petitioner, other employees of the Corporation have also been paid salary. Sri Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the statement made in the counter affidavit, but despite his best efforts, he has not been able to get instruction regarding the stand taken in the counter affidavit and, as such, he makes a prayer for disposal of the writ petition with indication that if still any grievance exists, the petitioner may raise his grievance before the authority concerned.

In view of stand taken in the counter affidavit, there is no reason to keep the matter pending. The writ petition disposed of with liberty as indicated above.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U