Amit Kumar Chakraworti v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 28 Jun 2011
- Bench
- R M DOSHIT, BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
Outcome
Disposed of
For the aforesaid reason the Appeal is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. 18-01-2012 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28th June 2011 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10032 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant is the son of one Madhumita…
Judgment
For the Appellant : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, A.C. to SC-2 For the Accountant General: Mr. Satyendra Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1111 of 2011 (4) dt.18-01-2012 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
18-01-2012 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28th June 2011 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10032 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant is the son of one Madhumita Kumari, an Auxiliary Nurse Mid-wife in Primary Health Centre, Gopalganj. The said Madhumita Kumari joined in November 1989. While in service she passed away on 29th May 1993 leaving her only son the appellant then a nine months old toddler. On attaining majority the appellant moved the State Government for terminal benefits of the service of his mother late Madhumita Kumari. As the State Government did not respond the appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 10032 of 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge has rejected the claim being stale and grossly belated. Therefore, this Appeal. In answer to the Appeal the respondent no.4 has made affidavit that he shall consider the claim made by the appellant provided the appellant produces the death certificate of his mother.
Operative part
We do appreciate that the appellant has raised the claim belatedly. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of money suit would not lie; certainly not when the suit would be time-barred. Nevertheless, as the appellant has made a categorical statement that soon after the death of his mother, the father also passed away and that the appellant was a mere toddler at the time of the death, we consider it appropriate to direct the State Government to consider the claim of the appellant particularly 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1111 of 2011 (4) dt.18-01-2012 once the respondent no.4 has expressed willingness to consider the claim made by the appellant. For the aforesaid reason the Appeal is disposed of with a direction the appellant will make appropriate claim/representation before the respondent no.4 with all relevant documents including the death certificate of his mother late Madhumita Kumari and the birth certificate of the appellant.
If the appellant makes such claim/representation accompanied by necessary documents within four weeks from today the respondent no.4 will consider the same keeping in view the service particulars the service records of late Madhumita Kumari and nominations made by her, if any. The respondent no.4 will also ascertain the identity of the appellant-claimant and the genuineness of the claim made by the appellant. Such an exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of the receipt of the representation made by the appellant under this order. Subject to the above direction, the Appeal is disposed of. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) Pawan/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the aforesaid reason the Appeal is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 28 Jun 2011. The bench was R M DOSHIT, BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA.
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.