Sankalp Krit Sewa Manch v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5803 of 2016 ====================================================== Sankalp Krit Sewa Manch, Mahuli at Phulwarisharif, Patna through its Secretary namely, Kumar Manikant S/o Krishna Kumar Singh R/o Village - Mahuli, P.O. - Suitha, P.S. Parsa Bazar, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary, Bihar State Social Welfare Board, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Bihar State Social Welfare Board, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajeet Kumar, SC-28 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 17-05-2016 Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta, counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner raised his grievance in respect of nonpayment of his bills submitted for the services rendered during the period 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 under the Rajiv Gandhi National Crèche Scheme.

Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the details of the bills present at Annexure-2 series submits that for the last three years the petitioner has been running around for his dues which comes to Rs. 1,51,344/-.

This matter was last heard on 03.5.2016 when counsel for the State was directed to seek instruction and file

Patna High Court CWJC No.5803 of 2016 (3) dt.17-05-2016 affidavit but yet no counter affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances discussed and finding no response from the authority concerned, I deem it fit and proper to direct the respondent no. 2 Secretary, Bihar State Social Welfare Board, Government of Bihar, Patna as well as respondent no. 3, the Director, Bihar State Social Welfare Board, Government of Bihar, Patna to consider the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the claim raised by the petitioner is found admissible, the payment be made within the same period as stipulated above, however in case it is not found admissible then the claim should be disposed of by a speaking order to be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(Jyoti Saran, J) S.Sb/- U