High CourtsSingle Bench

Chandravir Jha vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Patna High Court · Decided on 21 September 2020 · Citation: (2020) 09 PAT CK 0245

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vikash Jain, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5357 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 323 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State through video conference.

2.

The present writ petition has been filed “for a direction to the respondents to pay the post retiral dues to the petitioner who was in service since

1979 continuously till his superannuation i.e. 31.01.2018 such as payment of G.P.F., gratuity; and for fixation of pension after revised pay scale since

1996; and for payment of benefit of ACP/MACP for order to deposit the C.P.F. amount in G.P.F. head by the respondent no.5 deducted since 2006

till the date of superannuation.â€​

3.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that the entire amount of retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner. However, it is

stated that the benefit of 7th pay revision has not been granted and the pay requires to be revised accordingly.

4.

Learned counsel for the State appears and has been heard.

5.

Having regard to the stand of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before

the concerned authority for redressal of his grievances, furnishing therewith his mobile number and e-mail ID. If any such representation is filed within

a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merits in accordance with law after grant of an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Payment to the extent found due to the petitioner upon determination shall be made without delay. In case the

petitioner’s claim is found inadmissible, whether in whole or in part, the petitioner’s representation shall be disposed of by a speaking order in

that regard.

6.

It is also made clear that in view of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, any correspondence between the parties may be made through e-mail and that

the petitioner shall be at liberty to request the concerned authority for hearing through video conference.