Dineshwar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2008 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9230 of 2011 ====================================================== Dineshwar Prasad, Son of Late Timal Mahto, resident of village - Chakjan, P.O. Sarasat, Via - Nawbatpur, P.S. Naubatpur, District - Patna, at present residing at village - Andhra Chauki, P.S. - Bikram, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Administrator, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patel Path, Patna - 1.

2. Administrator, namely, Sujata Chaturvedi, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patel Path, Patna - 1.

3. Chief Accounts Officer, namely, Brij Kishore Mishra, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna - 1. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kapil Deo Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 07-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

C.W.J.C. No. 9230 of 2011 was disposed of on 14.10.2014 in the following terms:

"If the petitioner files a fresh representation before the Chief Accounts Officer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, he would dispose of the same by a speaking order in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, this application stands disposed of."

After the order of this Court, the representation of the petitioner was disposed of by speaking order on 09.08.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even

Patna High Court MJC No.2008 of 2016(3) dt.07-01-2019 2/2 after the order dated 09.08.2016 (Annexure-A to the showcause) petitioner has not been paid of Rs. 31,000/- towards earned leave, Rs. 4050 towards discrepancy in pay revision and Rs. 1,90,552/- towards discrepancy in pay in terms of 5th and 6th pay revision. He also submits that the petitioner is also aggrieved by non-payment of amount deducted towards family pension.

Considering the aforesaid, the Court does not feel inclined to proceed any further in the matter. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.

However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any nonpayment of dues i.e. earned leave, discrepancy in pay revision as well as difference of pay in terms of 5th and 6th pay revision to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of such grievance in appropriate proceeding.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- U