Akhileshwar Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20340 of 2016 =========================================================== Akhileshwar Kumar Singh, Son of Late Devdhari Singh, Resident of Village- Itaur, Post- Kumnaila, Block- Chrpokari, District- Bhojpur at Ara, at present posted as Panchayat Secretary at Gorahani Block, District- Bhojpur at Ara. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara.

3. The District Panchayat Officer, Bhojpur at Ara.

4. The District Accounts Officer, Bhojpur at Ara.

5. The Block Development Officer, Garahani, District- Bhojpur at Ara. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, AC to GA-5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30-01-2017 Heard parties.

The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Panchayat Sachiv (Panchayat Secretary) on 20.06.1984 and joined at Block Office, Ara, Sadar. He claims to have passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination also. However, due to the fact that Last Pay Certificate was not issued by the Block Development Officer, Ara, he is not getting his salary since 2005 and he has not been given benefit of first and second ACP also. Now, it is claimed that the Last Pay Certificate has been issued vide Annexure-1. Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of

Patna High Court CWJC No.20340 of 2016 dt.30-01-2017 2/2 with a direction to the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara to examine the matter of the petitioner and, if he is found entitled, payment of salary as well as financial benefit accrued with respect to the first and second ACP should be made.

It is expected that the entire exercise would be completed before 28.02.2017 as the petitioner is due to retire after attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2017.

The petitioner would be required to make a representation before the District Magistrate along with a copy of this order immediately.

It is made clear that if the petitioner's claim is not found tenable then the District Magistrate would be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order which should be immediately communicated to the petitioner.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) V.K. Pandey/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 31.01.2017 Transmission Date N.A.