Patna High CourtCWJC/20022/2010disposed

Subodh Shankar Sahai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-03-27The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20022 of 2010 =========================================================== Subodh Shankar Sahai, S/O Murlidhar Sahai, Retired Headmaster, R.S. High School, R/O Jamalpur, Munger At Present Resident Of Near Mahila Vidya Mandir School, Purani Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.O. & P.S. & Distt. Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resource Department, Bihar Government, New Secretariat, Patna

2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger

3. The District Education Officer, Munger

4. The Headmaster, R.S. High School, Jamalpur, Munger

5. The Treasury Officer,Munger / Lakhisarai

6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, S.C.9 For the Respondent no.6 : Mr. Ramyash Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-03-2015 The petitioner retired as Headmaster on 31.05.2008. His pension was fixed at Rs.9,085/- per month. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in reducing the pension. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to pension at the rate of Rs.9, 563/- per month.

On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that on account of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, punishment of cut in pension to the extent of 5% was imposed through order dated 06.05.2009. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20022 of 2010 dt.27-03-2015 2/2 petitioner, Sri Raj Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents-State and Sri Ramyash Singh, learned counsel for the Accountant General.

The petitioner is under the impression that the pension was reduced without any basis. The fact, however, remains that the respondents passed order dated 06.05.2009 ordering cut in pension to the extent of 5%. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by that, he may challenge the same through a separate set of proceedings. This writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies.

(L. Narasimha Reddy, CJ) Sunil/- U