Disposed

Kamal Baitha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC26 Sept 2018CWJC/17475/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Panchayat Secretary, sought coram benefits under a previous writ decision. The court briefed the authority to compare facts and extend benefits if applicable, then disposed of the petition without further direction.

What did the court decide?

Directed the concerned authority to examine the case facts and extend benefits from C.W.J.C. No. 9451 of 2013 if applicable. No specific order passed as the matter was disposed based on this direction

Kamal Baitha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17475 of 2015

¶3

===========================================================

¶4

Kamal Baitha son of Late Jageshwar Baitha resident of Village and Post OfficeNonfarwa, Police Station and Block- Patahi, District- East Champaran at Motihari at present posted as Panchayat Secretary Chiraiya Block, District- East Champaran at Motihari.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar.

¶8

The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari.

¶9

The Deputy Development Commissioner, East Champaran at Motihari.

¶10

The District Panchayat Officer, East Champaran at Motihari.

¶11

The District Accounts Officer, East Champaran at Motihari.

¶12

The Block Development Officer, Chiraiya, District- East Champaran at Motihari.

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s

¶14

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, SC22

¶15

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 26-09-2018

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

¶17

for the State.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of the present case are identical to the case of C.W.J.C. No. 9451 of 2013 (Brajesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), the aforesaid order squarely covers the issue involved in the present case.

¶19

In such view of the matter, the concerned authority is directed to examine the facts, law and prayer of the case of the petitioner and if it is found that present case is squarely covered

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.17475 of 2015 dt.26-09-2018

¶21

2 /2

¶22

by the aforesaid case, the same benefit should also be extended to the petitioner.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this

¶24

writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶26

Vinay/Sunny

¶27

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
UploadingDate	27.09.2018
Transmission Date	NA

Kamal Baitha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Baitha 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srikant Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raju Man Raman and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dharamdeo Tiwari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Alam Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Girja Nandan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Naresh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.