Sikandre Azam v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1561 of 2017 ====================================================== Sikandre Azam Son of Late Abdul Sattar, Resident of Mohalla- Near Sarai Masjid, P.S. Arrah Town, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt. in the Department of Finance, Old Secretariat Build 3.

The Deputy Secretary Department of Finance Bihar at Patna. 4.

The Divisional Commissioner, Patna.

5.

The Collector Bhojpur at Arrah.

6.

The D.D.C. Bhojpur at Arrah.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Ataul Haque For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Raghwendra Kumar, SC-22 Mr. Ravi Ranjan, AC to SC-22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 18-03-2021 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah, whereby and whereunder the benefits of ACP has not been released to the petitioner on the ground that he has not passed the departmental examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Smt. Jivachi Devi reported in 2020(2) BLJ 471, paragraph nos. 5 to 9 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

2/5 "5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the issue involved in the appeal is no more res integra as the same has already been decided by the Division Benchs of this Court in the following decisions:- (i). Bishwanath Prasad v. The State of Bihar, reported in (2011) 2 PLJR 136 (ii). Avinash Chandra Singh v. The State of Bihar, reported in (2012) 1 PLJR 663.

(iii). Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar, reported in (2017) 3 PLJR 824.

(iv). Judgment dated 19.3.2018, passed in LPA No. 599/2015 (Ramadhar Thakur v. The State of Bihar)

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records, it appears that the facts are not in dispute between the parties. The only issue involved in the appeal is as to whether passing of departmental accounts examination would be necessary for grant of benefits of Assured Career Progression, provided under the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 read with Clause (J) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 157 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958. I am in agreement with the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the issue, in hand, is no more res integra as the same has already been decided by different Division Benches of this Court in a catena of similar cases, mentioned herein below:- (i). State of Bihar v. Anjani Kumar, reported in (2013) 2 PLJR 643 (ii). Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar, reported in

3/5 (2017) 3 PLJR 824 and (iii). Ramadhar Thakur v. State of Bihar, reported in LPA No. 599 of 2015.

7. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in case of Ramadhar Thakur (supra), after extensive analysis and discussion of the provision of rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules 1958 and Rule 4 (clause 5) of the Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003, conclusively held after referring to various judgments, viz., Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar [(2006) 1 PLJR 282]; Syed Mozammil Ashraf v. The State of Bihar [(2007) 1 PLJR 438]; Shashi Shekhar Ambasta v. The State of Bihar [(2011) 3 PLJR 474]; Maheshwar Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar [(2000) 4 PLJR 262]; Rameshwar Roy v. The State of Bihar [(2017) 2 PLJR 127]; Daya Shankar Singh v. The State of Bihar [(2010) 3 PLJR 220] and Md. Shamsuddin v.

The State of Bihar [1983 PLJR 347] that Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules 1958 makes the passing of the departmental accounts examination a condition precedent for promotion to the selection grade, but not for general promotion and for not passing such exam, the benefits of the A.C.P. Rules, 2003, also cannot be withheld, unless there is a departmental rule for promotion. In other words, the Bench held that passing of departmental accounts examination is not a condition precedent for grant of A.C.P. Rules nor does Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 conceive of such a requirement. The same issue is also been involved in the case of Masomat Indu Devi v.

4/5 would be necessary for crossing efficiency bar, confirmation and for promotion to selection grade, but not general promotion. I also find that the provisions of the Bihar Water Resources Department Field Steno Typist's Cadre (Recruitment and Service Condition) Rules, 2014 does not apply in the respondent's case as respondent's husband superannuated from service in the year 2011. I do not find any reason to differ with the decision passed by co-ordinate benches of this Court.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the successive Division Benches of this Court as discussed above, I am of the considered view that the appellants are not justified in refusing benefits of the financial progression to the husband of the respondent on the ground that he did not pass the account or departmental examination. In view of the law pronounced by the courts in the similar cases as discussed above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the writ court, as such, the instant appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

9. Consequently, appellants are directed to consider the case of the respondent's husband for grant of ACP within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."

The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the position as is existing in law.

Having regard to the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench in the case of Smt. Jivachi Devi (supra), this Court finds that the impugned order dated

5/5 03.02.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence the same is quashed with a direction to the respondents to grant the benefits of A.C.P. to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

The writ petition stands allowed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U