Harish Chandra Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15187 of 2022 ====================================================== Harish Chandra Thakur Son of Umakant Thakur Resident of Shivpuri Ward No. 9 Araria, P.S. and District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar Madhepura through its Registrar. 4.

The Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 5.

The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 6.

The Finance Officer, B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 7.

The Principal, Araria College, Araria P.S. and District- Araria. 8.

The Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 9.

The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.

For the State :

Smt. Binita Singh (Sc28) For the L.N.M.U :

Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Adv.

For B.N. Mandal Univ. :

Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-05-2023 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. Binita Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the L.N.M.U. and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the B.N. Mandal University.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs this Court that the relief, as claimed for, in the present writ petition has not been redressed till date.

3. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on

Patna High Court CWJC No.15187 of 2022(4) dt.11-05-2023 2/2 behalf of the B.N. Mandal University, informs this Court that all the retiral dues has been paid to the petitioner. Only the representation of the petitioner has not been disposed of. So far as the claim of the petitioner with respect to given benefit w.e.f. 19.03.1991 has not been considered.

4. The petitioner, if so advised, may file a detailed representation before the concerned authority with supporting documents, in support of his claim, that he is entitled to be granted benefit from 19.03.1991 as has been granted to Md. Kafil Ahmad and many other employees.

5. The Registrar must redress the grievance of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the representation, as considering the fact that the petitioner has harassed much by not considering his case by passing any order, as to whether his claim is not identical to the claim of the other employee namely Md. Kafil Ahmad and other similarly situated employee.

6. The present writ petition stands disposed of. (Purnendu Singh, J) pravinkumar/- U