Ramashankar Mishra And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22245 of 2014 ====================================================== 1.

Ramashankar Mishra and Ors S/o Late Bibhisan Mishra Resident of village - Sahsa, P.O. Lauarampur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District - Siwan 2.

Jai Prakash Sharma S/o Late Nageshwar Sharma Resident of village - Gandak Colony, Quarter No. E/31, Chapra, District - Saran 3.

Santosh Kumar Chourasiya S/o Late Baidyanath Prasad Chourasiya resident of village - Naya Gao Rasulpur, P.O. and Post. Naya Gaon, Distt. - Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Water Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director, Revenue Administration Cum - Special Secretary, Water Development Department, Bihar, 3.

The Additional Collector, Revenue Division, Saran, Chapra 4.

The Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Saran, Chapra 5.

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Siwan null null 6.

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Siwan 7.

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Chapra 8.

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Saran ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adv.

Mr. Bambam Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Rajeev Ranjan, AC to GP-20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 12-12-2022 Though the present writ petition was filed for directing the Respondents to pay 20% extra salary to the petitioners in view of Section 100 of the Bihar Service Code but the Respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the case of the petitioner no. 2 has been

Patna High Court CWJC No.22245 of 2014(2) dt.12-12-2022 2/2 rejected, vide letter dated 20.11.2014, issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Siwan and as far as the petitioners no. 1 and 3 are concerned, they are working only on one independent post at a time, hence, their claim is not tenable in the eyes of law.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and proper to dispose of the present writ petition, with liberty to the petitioners to re-agitate their grievances before the Respondent authorities, by filing a comprehensive representation, enclosing ample proof and materials to buttress their claim.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U