High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Sohan Lal Srivastava vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 19 April, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Sohan Lal Srivastava vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 19 April, 2011
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         CWJC No.6785 of 2011
          SOHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA SON OF LATE UMA SHANKAR LAL,RESIDENT
          OF MOHALLA SHARDA VIHAR COLONY MIRAPUR, BASAHI, POLICE
          STATION BASAHI, VARANASI, DISTRICT VARANASI (U.P.).
                  ...                      ...   PETITIONER.
                                 Versus
     1.   THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
          BIHAR, PATNA.
     2.   THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GAYA, THROUGH ITS
          ADMINISTRATOR.
     3.   THE TOWN COMMISSIONER, GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (WATER
          CORPORATION), GAYA.
     4.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER CORPORATION GAYA (MUNICIPAL
          CORPORATION), GAYA.
     5.   DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, GAYA.
                  ...                      ...   RESPONDENTS.
                              -----------

2. 19.4.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner

is permitted to implead District Provident

Fund Officer, Gaya as respondent no.5.

Heard Shri Bakhshi S.R.P. Sinha,

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,

Smt. Nutan Sahah, learned A.C. to S.C.1,

who appears on behalf of respondent no.1

and newly added respondent no.5 and Shri

Ravindra Kumar Priyadarshi, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2, 3

and 4/Gaya Municipal Corporation.

The petitioner, who retired as

Junior Engineer from Gaya Municipal

Corporation with effect from 31.3.2010, has

prayed for directing the respondents for

payment of all the retiral dues which
2

include fixation of pension. It has been

submitted by Shri Bakhshi S.R.P. Sinha,

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

that despite the fact that petitioner

retired one year back, but till date,

nothing has been paid to him. Even he has

not received amount of G.P.F. and Group

Insurance.

          It      was        further         submitted       that

petitioner      has        also      filed     representation

before respondent no.3, but no decision has

been taken till date.

In view of the facts and

circumstances, particularly the fact that

petitioner retired with effect from

31.3.2010, 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.3

within a period of six weeks from today. If

such representation is filed, respondent

no.3 is required to examine the same and

pass appropriate order in accordance with

law redressing all the grievances of the

petitioner within a period of three months

form the date of filing of such
3

representation. The respondent no.3 is

further directed to make payment of all the

admitted dues within aforesaid time. Even

in case of refusal, respondent no.3 is

directed to pass a speaking order within a

period of three months from the date of

filing of such representation.

With aforesaid observation and

direction, the petition stands disposed of.

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