Patna High Court
WRIT PETITION 5972 of 2025 on 22 October 1977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5972 of 2025
======================================================
Shakuntala Devi Wife of Late Indra Deo Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-Makdumpur Near Pragya Library, P.S.-Sheikhpura, District-Sheikhpura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principle Secretary, Health Department,Government of Bihar at Patna.Government of Bihar at Patna.
2. The Director in Chief, Diseases Control Public Health and Para Medical,Medical Services, Bihar, Patna.Medical Services, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Additional Director, Health Services, Munger Division,Munger.Munger.
4. The Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Munger.
5. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Munger.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Munger.
7. The Accountant General Bihar at Patna.
222-04-2025
... ... Respondent/s
Page 1 of 2
Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Md. Ataul Haque, Adv. For the Respondent/s: Mr. Advocate General
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDELORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well ascounsel for the respondent – State.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that thepetitioner had joined services on 22.10.1977 on the post of NurseGrade – A and stood retired from services on 30.11.2013 thereby, shehad completed about 36 years in the services, referring to the memono. 859 dated 29.03.2007, Annexure – P/1, he further submits thateven after the recommendation made by the competent authority therespondents did not make entry into the service book of the petitionerand for that reason she did not get her due from the respondents Siddharth Soni/-U
although, she is entitled for payment of arrears as well as the revisedpension. She continuously made her representation before therespondents but, no decision has been taken by the concernedrespondent. Lastly, he submit that this petition may be disposed ofdirecting the concerned respondent i.e. respondent no. 5 to considerand decide the pending representation dated 14.01.2022, Annexure –P/3 within any specific period fixed by this Court.
3. The above prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the State Counsel.
4. On the basis of submissions made by both the counsels,the petition is disposed of, respondent no. 5 is directed to considerand decide the pending representation of the petitioner i.e. Annexure– P/3 dated 14.01.2022, in accordance with relevant rules and lawsand pass a reasoned order as early as possible within three monthsfrom the receipt of Order of this Court.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
(Arvind Singh Chandel , J)
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…