NAND DULAL ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has retired from the services of the respondents on 31st December, 2007, he has not been paid pension by the respondents and, therefor, the present writ petition has been preferred.

(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the order at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition, whereby, the benefit of pension has been denied to the petitioner. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner bearing W.P.(S) No. 3224 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.2011, wherein, direction was given to the respondents to pass speaking order, after hearing the petitioner and Annexure 3 is an order, passed by the respondents, in pursuance of the aforesaid direction in the earlier writ petition.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: