Chandra Kishore Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14199 of 2016 =============================================== Chandra Kishore Jha, Son of Jagdish Jha, resident of VillageDhamaun, Police Station- Shgahpur Patori, District - Samstipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The District Education Officer, District- Samastipur., ,

3. The District Programme Officer, District- Samastipur., ,

4. The Accountant General (A &E) Bihar, Patna., ,

5. The State Bank of India, Branch Patory Samastipur., ,

6. The Treasury Officer, Samastipur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Jaiswal, Adv.

For the State :

None.

For the SBI : Mr. Satya Prakash Tripathy, Adv.

=============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State Bank of India. None appears on behalf of the State as well as the Accountant General.

The grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annexure-2, the Accountant General (A & E) Bihar, Patna has already authorized payment of enhanced/revised pension @ Rs. 9465/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2007, however, the enhanced pension from 01.04.2007 till February, 2015 which comes to Rs. 5, 34,248/- has not been paid to the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14199 of 2016() dt.20-07-2017 2/2 It is contended that if pension is paid once by the Bank, thereafter, every revision etc. accordingly, done by the accountant has to be directly paid by the State Bank of India. However, it appears from Annexure-2 that the copies have been sent to the District Programme Officer, Samastipur. Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3, i.e., the District Programme Officer, Samastipur to ensure that the admitted authorized difference of salary/arrears as per Annexure-2 is paid to the petitioner. If the District Programme Officer and the Treasury Officer has already taken steps then it would be the State Bank of India, respondent no. 5 to take steps for payment. If any of the aforesaid authority comes to the conclusion that such amount is not admitted and to be paid to the petitioner then reasoned order should be passed by the concerned authority and a copy of which should immediately be communicated to the petitioner.

( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Vikash/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 01.08.2017 Transmission Date NA