Bijay Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15582 of 2017 ====================================================== Bijay Kumar Sinha S/o Late Mathura Prasad, Resident of Village-Bari Durga Asthan, Shadik, P.O.-Munger, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Divisional Commissioner, Munger. 2.

The Divisional Commissioner, Munger.

3.

The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Munger. 4.

The District Establishment Committee, Lakhisarai represented through its Chairman-cum-District Magistrate, Lakhisarai 5.

The Block Development Officer, Block-Suryagarha, District-Lakhisarai. 6.

The Certificate Officer, District-Lakhisarai. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shri Prakash Srivastava Ms. Anu Priyadarshni For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Mukul Prasad, AC to GP 18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 21-05-2019 Matter has been listed today in the Summer Vacations as the learned Counsel for the petitioner was desirous for consideration of his case during vacation. The slip for listing was filed pursuant to notice dated 8th May, 2019, published prior to the Vacation. The matter is, accordingly, taken up for consideration as both parties are present and willing to assist the Court for disposal of the matter.

It is submitted by Mr. Srivastava, appearing for the petitioner, that claim on account of ACP & MACP has not been

Patna High Court CWJC No.15582 of 2017(4) dt.21-05-2019 2/3 considered as an amount of Rs. 5,43,730/- was alleged to be outstanding against the petitioner and because of his conviction in a criminal case. Referring to Annexures 6, 6/A and 6/B it is submitted that the amount of Rs. 5,43,730/- has been refunded to the petitioner under order dated 23.6.2017 issued by the District Magistrate Lakhisarai and the petitioner has finally been acquitted in the criminal case on 4.7.2016 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 436 of 2002. He submits that in view of these developments petitioner's claim on account of ACP & MACP now has to be considered in the changed circumstances. The competent authority for considering the claim of the petitioner, who was serving as a Clerk in the Collectorate, is the respondent No. 3.

In view of the admitted position that consideration has to be done in accordance with law, on the basis of these developments, this Court is of the opinion that keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose. The same is therefore disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider petitioner's claim in light of aforesaid developments and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. If dues are found admissible the same should also be paid to the petitioner expeditiously and without undeue delay.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15582 of 2017(4) dt.21-05-2019 3/3 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U