IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7050 of 2011
BHUP NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF LATE SURAJDEO SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KHAMHAURI, P.O.-RAJAPUR, P.S.-
GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, DISTRICT - SIWAN.
........... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR,
PATNA.
2. SECRETARY, P.W.D., BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH BIHAR AREA BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE DIRECTOR, PROVIDENT FUND, BIHAR, PATNA.
5. DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, PATNA.
.......... RESPONDENTS
-----------
2 21.04.2011 Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Shashi Shekhar, learned A.C. to Standing
Counsel No. 9, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
The petitioner while invoking extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this court has prayed for directing the respondents
to make payment of remaining unpaid retiral dues, such as, entire
provident fund amount.
From the pleading it is evident that the petitioner
retired as ‘Assistant Engineer’ from the Office of Respondent No.
3, on 31.03.1994. No plausible explanation has been given in the
writ petition for slumbering over his right for payment of aforesaid
dues. Besides this, in the writ petition not even a single document
has been brought to show as to ever the petitioner had ever
demanded justice before the authority concerned or not.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated
2
that due to illness he had not earlier claimed for his aforesaid dues.
From the writ petition it is evident that no demand of
justice was earlier made by the petitioner despite the fact that
petitioner retired in the year 1994. Suddenly, in the year 2011, the
petitioner has approached this court directly without approaching
the authority concerned.
The court is of the opinion that for invoking writ
jurisdiction for the purposes of issuance of writ of ‘Mandamus’ it
is must to first demand justice, and if it is denied, only then, he can
approach this court.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that no relief can be
granted to the petitioner.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
( Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Praful