Banshidhar Mishra vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 433 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1037 of 2019
     ======================================================

Banshidhar Mishra Son of Late Ram Sinhasan Mishra Resident of - Ranjan Path, Near Gyan Niketan, Danapur, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar and Ors through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna

3. The Deputy Secretary (Management) Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna

4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Gaya, District- Gaya

5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Veer Chand Patel Marg, Patna, Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sheo Jee Mishra, Adv For the State Respondent: Mr.Binay Pandey, A.C. to G.A.-2. For the Respondent No.5: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 28-01-2021 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has brought this writ application for

issuance of mandamus against the respondents to fix pension of

the petitioner as Rs.78,300/- per month which has wrongly been

fixed at Rs.73,800/- due to error in computer feeding. Petitioner

had filed a representation before the authorities, which is a copy at

Annexure-3.

3. The respondents in their counter affidavit asserted

that the pension has correctly been fixed for the reason that the

petitioner retired on 30.06.2013 and before his retirement he was Patna High Court CWJC No.1037 of 2019 dt.28-01-2021

punished in departmental proceeding and one increment was

withheld on 28.01.2013 and one more increment was withheld in

another proceeding on 05.06.2013 with non-cumulative effect.

However, the orders were communicated to the authorities

concerned in the month of November, 2013 that is why there is

direction for recovery of the excess amount paid in the order dated

06.01.2014 contained in Annexure-R5/B of the counter affidavit

filed by the Accountant General.

4. Considering the disputed fact of calculation, let the

petitioner file representation before the authorities concerned who

shall pass a reasoned order showing the calculation of the pension

to ascertain the correctness of the decision of the authority.

5. With the aforesaid observation, this application

stands disposed off.

(Birendra Kumar, J)

Nitesh/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          01.02.2021
Transmission Date