Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh Mr. Jay Shankar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp20) Mr. Vikas Kumar Mr. Girijesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 13 02-08-2013 The instant writ petition was filed by Manorma Singh for payment of retiral benefits of her husband Bipin Bihari Singh who died in harness on 4.3.2006 while serving in BISCOMAUN. She also died on 13.11.2010 during pendency of the writ petition. Thereafter her son Sanjay Kumar Singh was substituted in her place vide order dated 10.7.2013, passed in I.A. No. 3949/2013. In paragraph 4 of I.A.No.3949/2013, the petitioner stated that when he contacted the Corporation authorities he learnt that Corporation had issued cheques for Rs. 4,48,577/- vide cheque no. 058499, dated 19.2.2013, as well as for Patna High Court CWJC No.13093 of 2006 (13) dt.02-08-2013 Rs.1,52,514/- vide cheque no.796676 dated 2.8.2011 in favour of Manorma Singh. However, the Corporation produced a cheque for Rs. 4,48,577/- bearing no. 058499 dated 19.2.2013 to be handed over to the petitioner. It appears that the parties were not aware about the death of Manorma Singh. As such the cheque dated 19.2.2013 was issued in her name. The cheque for Rs. 4,48,577 is returned to Mr Satyabir Bharti, counsel the Corporation for its revalidation in favour of Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Late Manorma Singh. It will be open for Mr Sanjay Kumar Singh to approach the Managing Director/competent authority for receiving the fresh cheque. So far as other chaque of Rs.1,52,514/- bearing no. 796676 dated 2.8.2011 prepared in favour of Manorma Singh is concerned, a fresh cheque for the same amount be issued in favour of Sanjay Kumar Singh if the said cheque has not been en-cashed. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of. It will be open for the newly substituted heir of the petitioner to file representation for any unpaid admissible dues which would be duly considered and would be paid by the respondents. 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.