Vijay Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1765 of 2025 ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Chaudhary Son of Late Baidya Nath Choudhary, Resident of Village- Sultanpur, P.S.- Kusheshwar Asthan, District- Darbhanga at present Friends Colony, Said Nagar, Laheria Sarai, Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar.

2.

The Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar. 3.

The Engineer in Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar. 4.

The Chief Engineer- 3, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar. 5.

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Bhagalpur Circle. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shyam Kishor Das, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-02-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 4 & 5 to release the ACP/MACP amount with interest to the Petitioner.

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent no. 4 & 5 to avail the provision of MACP as per Rule vide no. 8/A.P.- 119/2013-73784 dated 30.06.2014 (Ann-4) is make by Government of Bihar.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no need for the petitioner to pass departmental examination for grant of A.C.P. /M.A.C.P. in the light of latest judgment of this

Patna High Court CWJC No.1765 of 2025(2) dt.06-02-2025 2/2 Hon'ble Court and in support of his claim, the petitioner has filed a representation as Annexure-P/9 sent to registered post to Respondent No.4.

4. Counsel for the State submits that though earlier writ petition of the petitioner has been rejected in the light of the earlier order passed by this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.3898 of 2024. He further submits that in the fresh representation, he has relied on various judgments, which have not been taken into consideration. As such, liberty may be granted to pass order on his representation vide Annexure-P/10 of the writ petition.

5. In this background, it transpires to this Court that the situation in earlier case and situation at present, have now changed. As such, the Respondent No.4 is directed to pass order afresh on the representation of the petitioner within 90 days from the date of production of this order.

6. With the aforesaid directions & observations, the present writ application stands disposed off. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U