Nagendra Sah vs The State Of Bihar Through Deputy ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3620 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 I.A. No. 3795 of 2021
                       In
                 W.P.(S) No. 4250 of 2014
                             ---------

     Nagendra Sah                                  ..... Petitioner
                             Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Deputy Managing Director (Administration) Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Samiti Limited, Budha Marg, Patna, P.O. & P.S.- Budha Marg, District-Patna (Bihar).

2. The Deputy Managing Director (Administration) Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Samiti Limited, Budha Marg, Patna, P.O. & P.S.-Budha Marg, District- Patna (Bihar).

3. The Manager, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Samiti Limited, Lohardaga, P.O, P.S. & District- Lohardaga (Jharkhand).

..... Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Binit Chandra, Advocate

---------

08/Dated: 27th September, 2021 Heard through V.C.

I.A. No. 3795 of 2021.

2. This interlocutory application has been preferred by

the petitioners for substituting the name of original-

petitioner- Nagendra Sah with the name of his legal heirs as

the original petitioner has died during the pendency of this

case.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have

any objection.

4. In view of the aforesaid fact, this I.A. No. 3795 of

2021 stands allowed.

5. The registry is directed to make necessary correction

in the cause title of main writ application by incorporating

the name of legal heirs / petitioners of I.A. No. 3795 of

2021.

W.P.(S) No. 4250 of 2014.

6. The instant writ application has been preferred by

the original-petitioner praying for a direction upon the

respondent-authorities to pass a reasoned order in the light

of judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 330 of 2006 which has

been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.

309 of 2009.

7. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners

fairly submits that since the original-petitioner has died, as

such this application may be disposed of by giving liberty to

the present petitioners who are the legal heirs of the

original petitioner to file a fresh representation before the

respondent No.2, so that the claim of the original petitioner

may be redressed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have

any objection.

9. In view of the limited submission of learned counsel

for the petitioners, the instant writ application is, hereby,

disposed of by giving liberty to the present petitioners/legal

heirs to file a fresh representation before the respondent

No.2 along with relevant documents in support of their

claim for monetary benefits within a period of 10 weeks.

If any such representation is filed before the

respondent No.2; the same shall be disposed of by giving a

reasoned and speaking order in the light of judgment

passed in L.P.A. No. 330 of 2006 which has been affirmed

by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil appeal No. 309 of 2009

and all the monetary benefits which will accrue pursuant to

disposal of the representation, shall be given to the present

petitioners within a period of 16 weeks.

10. With the aforesaid observations the instant writ

application stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/