Rajendra Paswan And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8239 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.

Rajendra Paswan and Ors son of Sri Raghunandan Paswan, resident of Umednagar, P.S. Deep Nagar, District- Biharsharif. 2.

Ram Ekwal Paswan, son of Rajaram Dass, resident of Village Gauri, P.S. Chandi, District Nalanda.

3.

Prakash Paswan, son of Late Raghunandan Paswan, resident of VillageNakatpur, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda. 4.

Umesh Paswan, son of Madan Paswan, resident of Village- Koshu, P.S. Deep Nagar, District Nalanda.

5.

Chandrika Paswan, son of Bajir Paswan, resident of Village Alaudia Sorai, P.S. Manpur, District Nalanda.

6.

Ram Pravesh Paswan, son of Late Sri Dass, resident of Uprora, P.S. and District Biharsharif.

7.

Ram Pukar Paswan, son of Late Lachchu Dass, resident of Alaudia Sorai, P.s. Manpur, District Biharsharif.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Public Health Engineer Department, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Executive Engineer, Public Health Mechanical Division, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Birendra Kant Chaudhary For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ramadhar Singh, GP 25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 24-07-2019 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondents-State.

Petitioners have filed writ petition claiming benefit under Assured Career Progression(ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression(MACP) scheme. They are employees working in Public Health Engineering Department. Petitioners

Patna High Court CWJC No.8239 of 2015(2) dt.24-07-2019 2/2 in respect of their claim for grant of ACP are placing reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Shyam Bihari Verma vs. State of Bihar & others decided in CWJC no. 7187/1998. Petitioners have approached this court without approaching the authorities in respect of their claim.

Counsel for the State takes objection that the petitioners should not have approached this court directly. Faced with such difficulty, counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would approach respondent no.2 in respect of their claim by filing detailed representation which would be filed by the petitioners within four weeks. In the event, same is filed, Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Public Health Engineering Department (respondent no.2) shall consider the same by reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within the period of three months thereafter.

Writ petition stands disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) s.hassan/- U