Rukhsana Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14409 of 2022 ====================================================== Rukhsana Khatoon Wife of Late Abdul Aziz Manzer, resident of MohallaMahalper Bihar Sharif, P.S.-Bihar, District-Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 4.

The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

5.

The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 6.

The Vice Chancellor, Patliputra University, Patna. 7.

The Registrar, Patliputra University, Patna.

8.

The Finance Officer, Patliputra University, Patna. 9.

The Principal, Nalanda Mahila College, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar No.1, Adv.

For Magadh University :

Mr. Sunit Kumar, Adv.

For Patliputra Univ.

:

Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Adv., Ms. Rasika, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-06-2023 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar No.1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sunit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Magadh University and Mr. Rana Vikram Singh and Ms. Rasika, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Patliputra University.

2. Mr. Sunit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Magadh University seeks to file counter affidavit. The same is directed to be kept on record.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14409 of 2022(4) dt.20-06-2023 2/3

3. It is informed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University that in compliance of the order dated 01.05.2023, entire retiral dues of the petitioner, as claimed in the present writ petition, has been paid and credited into the account of the petitioner. The specific statement has been made in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5, which are reproduced hereinafter:- "8. That the petitioner has claimed gratuity which has already been paid to her through P.P.O. No.

3272/2010 under letter no.

Fin/Pen/2057/10 dated 10.12.2010.

Amount of gratuity was calculated and found admissible amounting to Rs.

20160/-.

9. The petitioner has claimed the payment of Group Insurance. The record has been versified and found that the admissible amount of Rs. 96,000/- has already been paid to her vide Cheque No. 023233 dated 24.11.2014.

10. That the petitioner has claimed the salary difference in 5th pay revision which was admissible from 01.04.1996 and petitioner's husband expired on 21.09.1994. Hence

Patna High Court CWJC No.14409 of 2022(4) dt.20-06-2023 3/3 petitioner's claim is baseless and incorrect. The petitioner is already getting family pension. Hence nothing remains dues therefore it is humbly prayed that writ may kindly be dismissed."

4. The statements are substantiated by evidence annexed as Annexures A and B respectively.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that admittedly grievance of the petitioner has been redressed.

6. Considering the fact that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed and the petitioner has no objection to that effect.

7. The present writ petition is consigned.

(Purnendu Singh, J) pravinkumar/- U