Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9779 of 2022 ====================================================== 1.

Manoj Kumar Son of Late Kishundeo Prasad, resident of Village and Post Office- Singhoul, Police Station- Muffasil, District- Begusarai. 2.

Suchitra Lal Wife of Late Prabhat Kumar Lal, resident of Village Pragati Enclave, Deddhi, Ranchi near- Divyani Motors, Police Station- Doranda, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).

3.

Dinesh Kumar Son of Ram Khelawan Tanti, resident of Village- Madanpur, Post Office- Kajra, Police Station- Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai. 4.

Mritunjay Kumar Son of Late Mahendra Narayan Lal Karn, resident of Village- Basuham, Post Office- Bahera, Police Station- Bahera, DistrictDarbhanga. 5.

Mithilesh Kumar Sinha Son of Late Rama Shankar, resident of VillageBhojua, Post Office- Gogri, Police Station- Gogri, District- Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Main Secretariat, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna.

4.

The Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Drainage, Water Resources Department, Samastipur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC- 11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 14-09-2023 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2.

Petitioners are claiming the pay scale of Rs. 4000 to 6000. The grievance, as per submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the claim made before the Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Drainage, Water Resources Department,

Patna High Court CWJC No.9779 of 2022(3) dt.14-09-2023 2/2 Samastipur (respondent No. 4) is pending since July, 2021. Two copies of representations have been enclosed as Annexure- 1 series.

3.

Grievance raised by the petitioners does not call for any adjudication, since the claim is said to be pending before the Authority, who had not passed any order thereupon. Writ petitioner, therefore, need not kept pending. 4.

Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 to take decision on the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) Raj kishore/- U