Nirmal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7985 of 2021 ====================================================== Nirmal Kumar S/o Late Haridwar Singh @ Haridwar Yadav, Resident of Mohalla Anar Ward No. 16, P.O. Bihea, P.S. Bihea, District Bhojpur at Ara. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate and Collector, Bhojpur at Ara. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Lalit Kishore (Ag) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 14-02-2022 The matter is heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:

"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for commanding and directing the respondent to revise the salary, and fix and pay the salary in the scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 w.e.f., the date of appointment dated 16.07.2001 which is the actual pay scale of class III employees in the State of Bihar instead of pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 which the petitioner is getting till the date.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for commanding and directing the respondent to treat the petitioner in the scale of 4000-100-6000 w.e.f. the date of his appointment, i.e. 16.07.2001 and pay him the entire arrears of pay including other statutory benefits which is admissible to class III employee.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7985 of 2021 dt.14-02-2022 2/2 (iii) For issuance of any other relief or reliefs which deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. In the absence of representation followed by demand before the competent authority, question of issuance of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted in the light of Apex Court decision in the case of Mani Subrat Jain V. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486.

4. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a detailed representation in respect of treating the petitioner in the scale of 4000-100-6000 w.e.f. date of his appointment i.e. 16.07.2001 and payment of arrears and other statutory benefits, if any. If such representation is submitted before the competent authority, the competent authority is hereby directed to decide the petitioner's representation within a reasonable period of time.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) GAURAV S./- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date