Hawda Bhadur Rai v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.745 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13839 of 2013 ====================================================== Hawda Bhadur Rai (Ex-Constable), 11 Battalion C.R.P.F. Vide Ticket No. 650110944 S/O Late Tika Rai Class Gorkha, Village- Bhajpur, P.O.- Khotang (Nepal), Premanent Address- Hawda Bahadur Rai (Ex-Constable), 11 Battalion C.R.P.F. Vide Ticket No. 650110944, Resident Of MohallaKidwaipuri, Makan No. 1, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union Of India Through The Director General Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi, C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi (Sri Dilip Triwedi)

2. The Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector, East Zone, Patna (Sri Bibek Sahay)

3. The Commandant Central Reserve Police Force Mokama Ghat, 11 Battalion, C.R.P.F. (Sri Raj Kumar)

4. The Deputy Commandant, 11 Battalion, C.R.P.F. Sulgadih, Temar (Jharkhand)- 835225 (Chhote Lal)

5. The Sr. Account Officer, (Minister Of Finance) Government Of India, Department Of Expenditure Central Pension Accounting Office, Tirkutji, Bhikajee Cama Place, New Delhi, 110066 (Sri Anil Kumar)

6. The Director (Smt. Thipti P. Ghosh), Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievance And Pension Of Pensioners Welfare Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi- 110066 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjayu Kumar Singh, Adv For the Union of India : Mr. Anshuman Singh, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 16-08-2017 The only direction issued by the Writ Court was to consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision with regard to payment of pensionery benefits. The respondents, taking note of certain provisions have rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Patna High Court MJC No.745 of 2014 (3) dt.16-08-2017 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to a Circular issued by the Directorate of Personnel in the matter and contends that the application and his claim has not been considered in accordance to the aforesaid requirement and pension has been denied to him illegally.

If that be so, the petitioner should challenge the order passed rejecting the claim. The only direction issued in the Writ Petition was to consider and take a decision in the matter. The manner in which the representation has been decided cannot be a subject of adjudication in the contempt proceeding. The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Shageer/- U