Jaldhar Poddar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19532 of 2015 =========================================================== Jaldhar Poddar, S/o Late Bideshi Poddar, residing at Naya Tola, Naugachia, P.O. Naugachia, P.S. Naugachia, District - Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Tilaka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, through its Vice Chancellor

4. The Vice Chancellor, Tilaka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur

5. The Registrar, Tilaka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Harish Chandra Patel, Advocate For the University : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan, J.C. to A.A.G. 3 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-05-2016 Heard parties.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has got all the post-retiral dues save and except his pension which has not been revised as per the 6th pay revision. It is further contended that he has represented vide Annexure 1 and 2 before the Registrar of the Tilaka Manjhi Bhagalpur University but no decision has been communicated till date.

Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.5, the Registrar, Tilaka Manjhi

Patna High Court CWJC No.19532 of 2015 dt.16-05-2016 2 / 2 Bhagalpur University to take a final decision on his representations as contained in Annexure 1 and 2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the claim is admissible then the order regarding the same should be passed and difference in view of such revision should be paid immediately to the petitioner preferably within a further period of two months. However, if the petitioner's claim is not found tenable then the respondent no.5 should pass a reasoned order and communicate it to the petitioner within the aforesaid period of two months.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Sanjay-II/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.05.2016 Transmission Date NA