DAKHO DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the difference of salary for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 has been redressed. Furthermore, the Principal amount contributed towards GPF prior to 1976 was Rs. 1576.70 which with interest would come to Rs.…
Judgment
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc21) Mr. J.P.Karn Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 20-08-2013 Petitioner is widow of Late Brjesh Kumar Singh who was appointed as Assistant teacher in Prathmik Vidyalaya, Chanda Barachatti on 16.9.1964. He retired on 31.7.2001 from Prathmik Vidyalaya, Mohammadpur, district Jehanabad without any breakage in service. On filing of the counter affidavit, the dispute has narrowed down. The petitioner states that the salary of Patna High Court CWJC No.13935 of 2006 (4) dt.20-08-2013 October and November, 2001 and June and July, 2001 was not paid. The petitioner has further prayed for difference of pay from
1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973. He also prays for sanction of GPF amount due from 16.9.1964 to 31.12.1976. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent
Operative part
In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the difference of salary for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 has been redressed. Furthermore, the Principal amount contributed towards GPF prior to 1976 was Rs. 1576.70 which with interest would come to Rs. 6457/-. The recommendation has been made for issuance of authority slips as well. It is expected that the authority slip would be issued within two months from today. In case the petitioner has any grievance, he may file representation before the respondents who would dispose of the same at the earliest. The writ petition is disposed of. Shashi./- (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.