Balkishun Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11128 of 2017 ====================================================== Balkishun Prasad, Son of Late Bisheshwar Sao, Resident of Mohalla- Nayee Sadark, Maulaganj, P.S.- Vishunpad, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

5. The District Education Officer, Gaya.

6. The District Programme Officer, Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kameshwar Kumar-Gp17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 07-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is non consideration of his case for financial upgradation pursuant to the decision of the State Government under ACP Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has completed 40 years, the respondents are required to examine the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of financial up-gradation admissible to the petitioner.

In view of the above petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh representation before District Programme Officer

Patna High Court CWJC No.11128 of 2017(2) dt.07-05-2018 2/2 (Establishment) Gaya within a period of one month from today along with a copy of this order and in case representation is filed, the District Programme Officer will take final decision on the representation.

In view of the above the writ petition stands disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the claim of the petitioner it shall be the obligation of the respondent to examine claim of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U