Patna High Court
Fulia vs The State Of Bihar on 8 August, 2019
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 301 of 2018
Arising out of
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8154 of 2007
======================================================
Fulia, Wife of Late Wazir, Resident of Mohalla-Manga Gauri, P.S.-Civil Line,
District-Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Mr. Chaitanya Prasad, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Principal
Secretary), Department of Urban Development, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. Mr. Vijay Kumar, the Municipal Commissioner, Gaya Municipal
Corporation, Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Municipal Corporation : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi,
Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-08-2019 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Gaya Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') has assisted the Court.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court alleging non- compliance of order dated 09.12.2013 passed in CWJC No. 8154 of 2007. In the said order, the Commissioner of the Corporation was to examine the claim of the petitioner in light of the prevalent law and the rules and thereafter communicate the decision to her.
3. Show cause has been filed on behalf of the Corporation in which the stand is that after superannuation of the Patna High Court MJC No.301 of 2018 dt.08-08-2019 2/2 husband of the petitioner in the year 1992, he was paid pension and was also paid all his retiral benefits and upon his death also whatsoever was remaining has been paid way back in the year 2003. It was submitted that nothing further remains to be paid to the petitioner.
4. Copy of the show cause was served on learned counsel for the petitioner on 04.07.2018. There being no rejoinder to the same and also taking note of the fact that nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was taken up and heard, the Court can only presume that nothing further remains in the present case.
5. In the aforesaid background, the application stands disposed off.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR U T