High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Md.Omer vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 June, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Md.Omer vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 June, 2011
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         CWJC No.9289 of 2011
          MD.OMER S/O LATE MD. AYUB, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAZRA,
          P.O. MEGHWAR, VIA- BASAITH, DISTRICT MADHUBANI.
                  ...                     ...  PETITIONER.
                                 Versus
     1.   THE STATE OF BIHAR
     2.   THE VICE CHANCELLOR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA.
     3.   THE REGISTRAR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA.
                  ...                     ...  RESPONDENTS.
                              -----------

2. 20.6.2011. Heard Mr. Md. Soban Asghar, learned

counsel for the petitioner, Shri Prabhu

Narayan Sharma, learned A.C. to learned

Government Advocate, who appears on behalf

of respondent no.1/State and learned

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

nos.2 and 3/L.N. Mithila University,

Darbhanga.

The petitioner, who retired as

Reader with effect from 28.2.2004 from

K.V.S. College, Uchaith Benipatti under

L.N. Mithila University, has prayed for

directing the respondents to make payment

of differences of salary, arrear of

pension, which is due since the month of

March, 2004 to July, 2005 and also gratuity

amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that despite the fact that

petitioner retired long back in the year
2

2004, till date, aforesaid retiral dues

have not been cleared by the University

authority. The petitioner has also filed

representation before the competent

authority, but all went in vain.

After hearing the parties, the

court is of the opinion that writ petition

can be disposed of granting liberty to the

petitioner to file a fresh representation

before respondent no.2/Vice Chancellor,

L.N. Mithila University within a period of

six weeks from today. If such

representation is filed, respondent no.2 is

required to examine the same and pass

appropriate order in accordance with law

within a period of two months from the date

of filing of such representation. If the

respondent no.2 considers the claim of the

petitioner as genuine, he is required to

pass order for payment of aforesaid amount

within aforesaid time. It is directed that

petitioner shall be entitled to get

admissible interest on delayed payment.

Even in case of refusal, respondent no.2 is

required to pass a speaking order within

aforesaid time.

3

                With         above     observation      and

        direction,     the      writ    petition     stands

        disposed of.


N.H./                       ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)