Allowed

Chandra Shekhar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC29 Oct 2013CWJC/20806/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the impleadment of the Civil Surgeon and Additional Chief Medical Officer as respondents. It directed them to ensure payment of pending salary to the petitioner within one month and initiated an inquiry into delayed filing of counter-affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Allowed impleadment of Respondents No. 6 and 7. Directed them to ensure salary payment to the petitioner within one month. Initiated inquiry into delayed filing of counter-affidavits.

Chandra Shekhar Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20806 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Chandra Shekhar Sharma Son Of Late Ram Charitar Singh Resident Of Village: Surajpur, P.S.: Nalanda, District: Nalanda, Posted As B.C.G. Technician Of District T.B. Centre, Biharsharif, Nalanda Presently Deputed As B.C.G. Technician, Additional Primary Health Centre, Nalanda

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Nalanda At Biharsharif 4. The Additional Deputy Collector-Cum-Senior Incharge Officer, District Establishment Branch, Nalanda 5. The Block Development Officer, Asthawan, District: Nalanda 6. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda

¶4

Additional Chief Medical Officer, District T.B. Centre, Nalanda.

¶5

.... .... Respondent/s

¶6

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravindra Kr Choubey SC8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶7

2 29-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is

¶8

allowed to implead Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda and Additional Chief Medical Officer, District T.B. Centre, Nalanda to implead as respondent nos. 6 and 7 to this writ application. Let necessary correction may accordingly be made in cage column of the writ petition. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has a very

¶9

limited grievance concerning his payment of salary for the period for three days i.e. 07.11.2010 to 09.11.2010 and from

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.20806 of 2012 (2) dt.29-10-2013

¶11

¶12

a copy of the counter affidavit produced by learned counsel for the State, original whereof is said to have been filed by him in the Office of the High Court on 21.03.2013 and yet not on record of this case, this Court, in view of the admission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that such order has been issued vide memo no. 172 dated 05.02.2013 whereby the Additional Collector, Nalanda has already issued an order to the Additional Chief Medical Officer, District T.B. Centre, Nalanda to make payment of salary to the petitioner for the period from 07.11.2010 to 09.11.2010 would direct the respondent no. 6 and 7 to ensure that the payment of salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period of 07.11.2010 to 09.11.2010, if not already made to the petitioner by now must be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶13

Such a direction in fact has to be given by this Court because learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted hat even when the Additional Collector, Nalanda has issued the aforesaid order on 5.2.2013 for making payment of salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period of 7.11.2010 to 9.11.2010 by treating him to be present on duty the Additional Chief Medical Officer, District T.B. Centre,

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.20806 of 2012 (2) dt.29-10-2013

¶15

¶16

Nalanda has not complied the said order till date.

¶17

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

¶18

Let the Registrar General of this Court however hold an inquiry as to why the counter affidavit filed in this case on 21.03.2013 has not been brought on record till date even after expiry of a period of more than seven months of its being filed. The Registrar General shall also ascertain as to in how many cases the similar situation exists wherein, after placing of the matter in the Bench, the counter affidavits filed in the registry of this Court are still being stored in the Office.

¶19

The Registrar General therefore would be also under an obligation to submit his Action Taken Report with a clear proposal as to how the prompt placing of the counter affidavits/rejoinder affidavits etc. which have been filed in the Office after the cases have been placed in the Bench can be ensured within a period of 24 hours as prescribed for acceptance of any affidavit in writ petition under ChapterXXI C of Patna High Court Rules.

¶20

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶21

Ranjan/-

Chandra Shekhar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sarita Kumari and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Tilaknath Chaudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pintu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kameshwar Manjhi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.