Raghunandan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3068 of 2011 ======================================================
1. Raghunandan Singh Aged About 70 Years S/O Late Radha Singh Resident Of Village Purainia, P.O. Neora, P.S. Bihta, District Patna, State Bihar, Retired N.D.S.I. (National Scheme Instructor), Govt. Of Bihar. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. Mr. K.P. Ramaih, The Secretary, Art, Culture & Youth Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
3. Mr. Hemchandra Prasad, The Director (Youth Welfare), Art, Culture And Youth Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
4. Mrs. Kiran Kumari, The District Education Officer, Patna.
5. Mr. Anirudh Pd. The Director G.P.F., Govt. Of Bihar, Pant Bhawan Patna.
6. Mr. Arun Kumar, District Provident Fund Officer, Patna.
7. Mr. D.S. Dhariwal, The Accountant General Bihar Birchand Patel Path Patna.
8. Mr. Pramod Kumar The Accountant General, U.P., Allahabad.
9. The Account Officer, Human Resources Development Department, Education Department, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prasoon Sinha GA2 For Opposte party no.9 : Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharan, CGC For the A.G. Bihar : Mr. Ram Kinker Choubey, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-07-2015 Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that substantial payment has been made and so much so the Central Government has also paid GPF amount of its share. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain amounts have not been paid such as arrears of leave encashment on account of revision of pay. He further submits
Patna High Court MJC No.3068 of 2011 (19) dt.20-07-2015 that petitioner is in service since 1973 but deduction has been made from 1976. He has placed reliance on the chart attached to the show cause of opposite party no.6. On that basis he submits that proper payment has not been made. This Court is of the view, if still the petitioner is aggrieved, he will be a liberty to file representation before the competent authority who will insure the disposal of the same within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation. If the authority arrives to a conclusion that petitioner is entitled for the same, the authority will be obliged to pay the same within six weeks thereafter. In failure to disposal of representation the petitioner will be at liberty to file a simple application for revival of the case. With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U