Md. Kayum Ansari v. Mineral Area Development Authority through its Managing Director, Dhanbad
2013-07-09
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
body2013
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has made representation on 10.9.2012 and 31.10.2012 but no decision has been taken by the respondents as yet. He has further submitted that the petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.7.2012. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instruction submits that since there is financial scarcity, the salary etc. could not be paid to the employee on time however, he fairly submits that as and when such funds are made available, the retiral due of the petitioner, as admissible in law, would be paid to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a reasonable time. 4. Prayer as made by the counsel for the petitioner, is granted. 5. Respondents are directed to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that the claim of the retired employee should be given priority by the authorities. The writ petition is disposed of.