VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Umesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. S.K. Ranjan, learned A.C. to S.C. 15, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Ramkinkar Chaubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5/Accountant General, Bihar. The present writ petition was filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to make payment of family pension since father of the petitioner died on 24.6.1984.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-8 to the petition i.e. an authorization issued by the Accountant General contained in Memo No. 1494 dated 13.11.2009 addressed to the Treasury Officer, Patna. While issuing authorization, the Accountant General had asked the Treasury Officer, Patna to ensure payment after conducting enquiry. Even after issuance of authorization by the Accountant General, no step was taken by the Treasury Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner got legal notice issued on the Treasury Officer on 29.12.2009. Even thereafter, second notice was issued through advocate of the petitioner to the Treasury Officer. However, all efforts went in vain. Subsequently, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) In the present writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Treasury Officer/respondent no. 4 wherein he had stated that authorization dated 13.9.2009 was received in the office of the Treasury Officer. The Treasury Officer, in its counter affidavit, has not dealt with any averment made in the writ petition. In some and substance, it appears from the contents of the counter affidavit of Treasury Officer that he had shifted onus on petitioner for delay in the matter. However, the respondent/Treasury Officer has not at all stated as to what action he took after the receipt of authorization from the Accountant General and legal notice on behalf of the petitioner. Nothing has been mentioned in the counter affidavit.