Akhaury Sushil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9740 of 2021 ====================================================== Akhaury Sushil Kumar Son of Akhaury Damodar Prasad Resident of VillageSeora, Post Office-Phulwaria, District-Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4.

The District Collector, Gaya.

5.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya.

6.

The Treasury Officer, Gaya.

7.

The Accountant General (A and E), Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Virendra Prasad For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Lalit Kishore ( Ag ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-02-2022 The matter is heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. State counsel accepts notice for respondents.

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

"That this application is being filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing/commanding the Respondents authority to grant promotion of IIIrd ACP in the light of Government Letter dated 14.07.2010 issued by the Finance Department and pay the differential amount of arrears of salary, re-fix pension and pay the

Patna High Court CWJC No.9740 of 2021 dt.18-02-2022 2/2 differential amount of pensionary benefits with up-to-date penal interest @ 8 % in the light of judicial order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tiwary and several other cases.

That any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled may be granted by this Hon'ble Court."

4. The aforesaid relief is not supported by legal and statutory right followed by demand before the competent authority. For issuance of writ of mandamus, the aforesaid ingredients are warranted in terms of the Apex Court decision in the case of Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486.

5. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the competent authority with reference to service particulars read with the relevant provisions of law. If such a detailed representation is submitted, the competent authority is hereby directed to examine the petitioner's grievance and redress the same at the earliest. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) GAURAV S./- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 23.02.2022 Transmission Date