Disposed

Chandradeo Poddar v. the Bihar State Copt.Land Devp

Patna HC8 Apr 2013CWJC/10912/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directed payment of admitted dues and revised pay scale under Article 226. Court granted liberty to file detailed representation with Managing Director for consideration within one month, directing resolution within six months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file detailed representation within one month; Managing Director to pass reasoned order within six months if claims admissible.

Chandradeo Poddar Vs the Bihar State Copt.Land… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10912 of 2008

¶2

====================================================== Chandradeo Poddar S/o late Govind Poddar, R/o village & Post- Bariarpur, P.S. Bariarpur, District- Munger, at present Ex-Branch Manager of Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Budha Marg, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. through Administrator, Budha Marg, Patna 2. The Administrator, The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Budha Marg, Patna-1 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prem Prakash Arya, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.P.Choudhary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶3

Heard the parties.

¶4

2 08-04-2013

¶5

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents for payment of his admitted dues as also for payment of revised scale of pay as per the policy decision of the respondent-Bank, as fully detailed in paragraph-1 of the writ petition.

¶6

Though, this writ petition was filed as far back as on 24.7.2008, and though the matter has remained pending before this Court for almost five years, yet counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the respondents disputing the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the petitioner files a detailed representation before the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank, then the same

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.10912 of 2008 (2) dt.08-04-2013

¶8

2/3

¶9

shall be considered in accordance with law and admissible dues of the petitioner shall be paid to him.

¶10

After having heard the parties and on consideration of materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending any longer before this Court. However, interest of justice would be sub served if the petitioner is granted liberty to file a detailed representation before the Managing Director of the respondentBank with all supporting documents and raising all the pleas, which have been raised in the present proceeding. It is ordered accordingly.

¶11

If such a representation is filed with all supporting documents and a certified copy of the present order on behalf of the petitioner within a period of one month from today before the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank, then the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order at an earliest possible time, taking into consideration all the relevant materials available on record. If on consideration of the materials, the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank comes to a conclusion that the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner are admissible to him, then he shall further be obliged to issue consequential order granting admissible reliefs

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.10912 of 2008 (2) dt.08-04-2013

¶13

3/3

¶14

to the petitioner without any unnecessary delay.

¶15

Entire exercise must be completed by the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank within a maximum period of six month from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this

¶17

writ petition stands finally disposed of.

¶18

RPS/-

¶19

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Chandradeo Poddar v. the Bihar State Copt.Land Devp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandradeo Poddar v. the Bihar State Copt.Land Devp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balmiki Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Jagdish Sah Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dheeraj Kumar Sinha Vs The Bihar State Road Transport Cor. and Ors.

Chandrakant Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Pravin Chandra Vs Patna Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Rahish Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.