Parmeshwar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6669 of 2011 ====================================================== Parmeshwar Singh, son of Late Ram Audan Singh, resident of village - Baij, P.O. - Ishrauli, P.S. Marhaura, District - Saran at Chapra, retired Assistant Teacher Middle School, Padmoul, Anchal - Mashrakh, District - saran at Chapra .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra - cum-Chairman, The District Education Establishment Committee, Saran at Chapra

4. The District Superintendent of Education, Saran at Chapra District Saran at Chapra .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar -Man For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, SC 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-11-2015 Heard Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kumar Alok, learned SC No. 8. The petitioner, who obviously retired in the year 2005 has approached this court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of senior selection grade pay scale of matric trained pay scale with effect from the date from which the persons junior to the petitioner were granted the same relief of -course in the year 2010.

At the very outset learned State Counsel has raised an objection that without demanding justice the petitioner has

Patna High Court CWJC No.6669 of 2011 (3) dt.30-11-2015 2/2 directly approached the writ court.

The court is of the opinion that writ petition can be disposed of granting him liberty to file a detailed representation before the Respondent No. 3. If such representation is filed giving detail within a period of six weeks from today, the court expects that the Respondent No. 3 may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. If the claim of the petitioner is considered favourably, consequential order must be passed within aforesaid time. Even in case of rejection, a reasoned order may be passed and communicated to the petitioner within aforesaid time. (Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U