Arun Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12869 of 2013 =========================================================== Arun Kumar S/O Late Sheo Shankar Prasad Resident Of Village - Kuruthia, P.S. Bagengola, District - Buxar, At Present Residing At Jagdeo Nnagar ( Ara ), P.S. Nawada ( Ara ), District - Bhojpur, Presently Posted As Rajaswa Karmchari, Anchal - Bikramganj, District - Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Bihar, Patna

3. The Deputy Director, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Bihar, Patna

4. The Collector, Rohtas At Sasaram

5. The Circle Officer, Anchal - Dawath, District - Rohtas .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subash Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kr., AAG-4 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to payment of difference of pay of A.C.P. for the period 30.11.2006 to 19.6.2009 has been paid to the petitioner as stated in paragraph no.4 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- "4.

That the statement made in para 1 of the writ petition are by way of prayer & regarding the grounds taken in the writ.

It is stated in the context that admissible amount claimed by the petitioner in this writ has been paid to the petitioner details of which is given

Patna High Court CWJC No.12869 of 2013 dt.29-09-2016 belowPeriod for which the benefit of ACP has been given Bill No.

through which payment has been made Amount paid Date of payment 1.

From 09.08.99 to 14.11.2000 58/13-14 33,144=00 17.03.2014 2.

From 15.11.2000 to 19.05.05 66/13-14 1,55,062=0 18.12.2013 Total :- 1,88,206=00 Thus the prayers made or the grounds taken are not legal."

In that view of the mater, this Court feels that there is no need to proceed further and, accordingly, this case is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner that if he has still any grievance, he may file a fresh representation before the competent authority who will examine the case and take decision in accordance with law. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Rishi/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 03.10.2016 Transmission Date