Naveen Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19998 of 2016 ====================================================== Naveen Kumar Singh Son of late Baijnath Singh Resident of Village- Baudha Chapra, Police Station Avtarnagar, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through its Principal Secretary Department of Land Reforms and Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

Officer on Special Duty, Department of Land Reforms and Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Saran. 4.

The Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Collector, Saran. 5.

The Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Collector, Establishment, Saran.

6.

The Circle Officer, Dighwara, Saran.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Shekhar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Mukul Prasad, AC to GP18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 10-04-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent State.

The claim set forth by the petitioner in the instant proceeding is for payment of wages on account of services rendered by him in performing the duties of Amin at Circle Officer in Dighwara.

The petitioner's claim is that as there is no Amin posted at the said office, the Circle Officer, so as to facilitate disposal of land measurement work, has been taking services of the petitioner from time to time.

Patna High Court CWJC No.19998 of 2016(2) dt.10-04-2019 2/2 The respondents resisted the claim only by saying the the guidelines/direction in this regard for payment of petitioner's wages are required from the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar. Stand is that as soon as the guideline/instructions are received they will take action for redressing the petitioner's grievances. This stand has been taken by the Circle Officer (respondent No. 6) in his counter affidavit.

No affidavit has, however, been filed on behalf of the Department. The issue has been pending since 2016. Since the issue has to be considered by the Department as per stand of respondent No. 6, this Court would dispose of this application with a direction to respondent No. 2 to take a decision in respect of claim of the petitioner and issue an appropriate direction to respondent No. 6 after taking into consideration the works rendered by the petitioner in the said period, as claimed. Let a final decision on the claim of the petitioner be taken at the level of the Department within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U