Disposed

Chandra Bhushan Ojha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC26 Jun 2012CWJC/10723/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the petitioner's suspension and claim for subsistence allowance. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's grievance on revocation of suspension invoking a specific judgment and ordered payment of subsistence allowance including arrears as a statutory right.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to pay subsistence allowance including arrears to the petitioner in accordance with law within four weeks. Petitioner's grievance on suspension revocation to be considered.

Chandra Bhushan Ojha Vs The State Of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10723 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Chandra Bhushan Ojha Son Of Shri Jagnath Sharma Resident Of VillageKhabra, P.S.- Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur 3. Additional Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur 4. Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Minapur, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶4

2 26-06-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶5

The petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.3.2012. It is submitted that the suspension was under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2005,. Charges should therefore have been framed within three months. More than three months have expired but charges have not been framed. Before the charges could then be framed the petitioner has already objected to the continued suspension. Further grievance is for payment of subsistence allowance contending that the petitioner has complied Rule 10.

¶6

In so far as the first ground for revocation of the suspension under Rule 9(7) is concerned, let the respondents consider the grievance of the petitioner in light of the conclusions contained in para 20 of the judgement reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 272 (F.B.).

¶7

In so far as the second claim is concerned, subsistence

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.10723 of 2012 (2) dt.26-06-2012

¶9

¶10

allowance being a statutory right, if the petitioner has complied the condition of Rule 10 let the subsistence allowance including arrears be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶11

Let the order be complied with preferably within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order.

¶12

The writ application stands disposed.

¶13

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶14

Snkumar/-

Chandra Bhushan Ojha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bhushan Ojha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baijnath Mishra and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Nikhil Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Haradeo Narayan Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Niwas Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bansidhar Mishra Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.