IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17215 of 2011
Kashi Prasad S/O late Kailash Singh, resident of Mohalla
Pathrighat, P.S. Alamganj, P.O. Gulzarbagh, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Patna Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner-cu-
Chief Executive Officer, Mourya Loke, Patna.
2. The Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal
Corporation, Mourya Loke, Patna.
3. The Executive Officer, Bankipur Anchal, patna Municipal
Corporation, Patna.
4. The Accounts Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.
... ... Respondents.
----------------------------------
3. 30.9.2011. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Sinha,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Today
again, none appeared on behalf of the
respondent/Patna Municipal Corporation.
On earlier occasion also, none had
appeared on behalf of the
respondent/Municipal Corporation despite
the fact that copy of the writ petition was
already served on learned counsel for the
respondent/Patna Municipality before filing
of the writ petition. It is further evident
from order dated 29.9.2011 that since on
28.9.2011, none appeared on behalf of the
respondent/Municipal Corporation, the case
was passed over for the day.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he had personally informed the
learned counsel for the
2
respondent/Municipal Corporation. Even
then, he had not appeared on 29.9.2011.
Similarly, today none appeared on behalf of
the respondent/Patna Municipal Corporation.
The petitioner, who retired on
31.5.2011 as Assistant (Legal Cell) from
Head Office, Patna Municipal Corporation,
Patna, has prayed for directing the
respondents to make payment of all his
retiral dues. It was submitted that till
date, nothing has been paid to the
petitioner. After retirement, since payment
was not made, it was submitted that
petitioner filed representation before
respondent no.2/The Commissioner-cum-Chief
Executive Officer, Patna Municipal
Corporation for making payment,
particularly on the ground that he was in
urgent need of money for his medical
treatment and also it was alleged that in
similarly circumstances, payment was made
to one another employee.
In view of the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that none had appeared on behalf of the
respondents, the court has got no option
3
but to decide the matter on the basis of
materials available on the record. Fact
remains that petitioner retired from the
Municipal Corporation and nothing has been
paid to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition
stands allowed with a direction to
respondent no.2 to make payment of all the
retiral dues of the petitioner within a
period of six weeks form the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)