← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/11738/2016dismissed

Rameshwar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-11-30Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11738 of 2016 ====================================================== Rameshwar Yadav, Son of Late Moti Yadav, Resident of Village- Bhaur P.S.- Pandaul, District- Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through, Secretary Sugar Cane Industry Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Provident Fund, Commissioner, Employes Provident Fund Organization, Patna.

3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, Muzaffarpur.

4. The General Manager, Bihar State Sugarcane Corporation Limited Lohat Unit, P.O. Lohat, Via Pandaul, District- Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. S. K. Jha, Advocate For the E.P.F.O.

:

Mr. R. S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jainandra Kumar, Advocate For the B.S.S.C.

:

Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, A.C. to G.A. 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 30-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and Employees Provident Fund Organization.

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

"That present Writ application is being filed to issuance a Writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the Respondents to make payment of monthly family pension to petitioner in accordance with Family Pension Scheme 1995 treating him a Member of said scheme since 1971."

3. In view of the fact that earlier also the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.11738 of 2016 (3) dt.30-11-2017 2/2 had moved the Court for the same relief in C.W.J.C. No. 20398 of 2013, and the claim of the petitioner was rejected as misconceived by order dated 10.05.2016, the Court does not find that the present writ application is maintainable.

4. Accordingly, both on merits and maintainability, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U