Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.

Patna High Court – Orders
Radhika Raman Prasad vs The Chairman-Cum-M.D.,Fci &Ors on 14 September, 2011
                        Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5227 of 2008

                        Radhika Raman Prasad, Son of Late Rajendra Prasad, resident
                        of Mohalla- East Lohanipur, P.S. Kadamkuan, District &
                        Town Patna                    --------------------Petitioner

                    1. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Food Corporation
                       of India, Headquarter 16.20 , Bara Khambha Lane, New
                    2. The Zonal Manager (E), Food Corporation of India, Zonal
                       Office, 10-A, Middleton Road, Kolkata-71.
                    3. The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional
                       Office, Patna
                    4. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India,
                       Exhibition Road, Patna         ---------------------- Respondents.

02 14-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel appearing on behalf of all the Respondents/ Food

Corporation of India.

The present writ petition was filed in the year 2008 with a

prayer to direct the Respondents for payment of all the retiral dues.

The petitioner in the writ petition has admitted that D.C.R. gratuity

and leave encashment were paid to the petitioner immediately after

retirement in the year 2005 itself. The petitioner had retired on

31.01.2005 as Assistant Manager (G) from the District Office, Food

Corporation of India, Patna.

In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of

the Respondents, wherein it has been indicated that all the retiral

dues have already been paid to the petitioner. Even for fixation of

pension, the District Office of the Food Corporation of India has

already forwarded the pension papers on 14.03.2005 to the office of

the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi and

pension was already fixed. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has

been filed.

In view of the statements made in the counter affidavit, it

is evident that the grievances of the petitioner have already been

redressed and, as such, there is no need to keep the matter further


The writ petition stands disposed of.

( Rakesh Kumar, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.163 seconds.