DEVENDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No body appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Mukesh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the respondents is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to pay a sum of Rs. 16,370/- against bill no. 203 of 2001-02 along with interest. According to the petitioner two bills one amounting to Rs. 63,464/- and another amounting to Rs. 83,722/- were presented to the Latehar sub-treasury, by the drawing and disbursing officer for payment of salary to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the cashier gave two drafts; first draft was of Rs. 83,554/- and the second draft was of Rs. 47,000/- and in this way against bill no. 203 of 2001-02 amounting to Rs. 63,464/- only a sum of Rs. 47,094/-was paid to him and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 16,370/-is remained due to be paid to the petitioner. By filing counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was an Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department, Latehar, and has retired from service on 30.6.2001. The Executive Engineer of the Road Construction Division, Latehar, being the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, produced two bills one Bill no. 203 of 2001-02 amounting to Rs. 63,464/- and another Bill No. 229 of 2001-02 amounting to Rs. 83,712/-, which were passed by the Latehar sub-treasury officer and both the bills were encashed.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 it has been stated in paragraph 12 thereof that the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 63,464/-in cash on 27.3.2002 and it is wrong to say that he was paid only a sum of Rs. 47,094/-and, therefore, no due is remained to be paid to the petitioner and the petitioner also put his signature on receiving cash amount of Rs. 63,464/-on the acquittance roll.

(3.) Since the payment has already been made to the petitioner, in my view, the claim of the petitioner does not survive. Accordingly, this writ application is hereby dismissed.