← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/1050/2020disposed

Pitamar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

2020-02-13Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1050 of 2020 ====================================================== Pitamar Jha Son of late Hare Krishan Jha Ward No. 07, Resident of VillageChanpur (Harijan Tola), P.S.- Bangaon, District- Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Land Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Land Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Supaul.

4.

The Circle Officer, Saraigarh, Bhaptiyahi, District- Supaul. 5.

The Divisional Officer, Nirmali, District- Supaul. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prafull Chandra Thakur with Mr. Kanchan Jha, Advts.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Rai ( Gp18 ) Mr. Mukul Prasad AC to GP-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 13-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State.

The complain of the petitioner is that on account of long pendency of the proceedings under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, initiated on 15.06.2015, he is being made to suffer deprivation of pension. He is only being paid provisional pension since June 2015 on account of the pendency of the proceedings.

The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the process should be concluded expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1050 of 2020(2) dt.13-02-2020 2/2 The same, needless to say has to be done by the District Magistrate, Supaul (Respondent No.3). The grievance of the petitioner leaves no room for adjudication in the instant proceedings. Pendency of the writ proceedings would, therefore, be futile.

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to conclude the proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law and without any undue delay. The entire exercise should be completed preferably within a period of three

(03) months. The petitioner would be under a legal obligation to cooperate so that the conclusion of the proceedings be facilitated within the time frame.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U