Nripendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16263 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Nripendra Paswan Son of Sri Karu Paswan Resident of Vilage- Khaddi, P.O.- Dhangawa, P.S.- Hilsa, District- Nalanda .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary cum Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, District- Nalanda.

3. The District Education Superintendent, District- Nalanda.

4. The Block Education Officer Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

5. The Mukhia Asharhi Gram Panchayat, Block- Hilsa, District- Nalanda

6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda at Biharsharif .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Bhushan, AC to GP XVII ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 06-02-2018 The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda at Biharsharif, as party respondent no. 6 to the petition in course of the day.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

The issue raised in the present writ application is no more resintegra. The issue was adressed by this Court while disposing of batch of was on 28.01.2016 (C.W.J.C. No. 6066 of 2013 and analogous cases).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contrary to the litigation policy of the State, the respondents have

Patna High Court CWJC No.16263 of 2016 (2) dt.06-02-2018 2/3 compelled this petitioner to file the present writ application notwithstanding the fact that similarly circumstanced seven persons, out of eight, were granted relief, pursuant to the order, dated 28.01.2016. The learned counsel submits that in the case of the petitioner the respondents are insisting the petitioner to also file writ application and obtain similar order, only then they may grant similar benefit.

The learned counsel for the State has not filed any counter affidavit, but, submits that there is no representation claiming similar benefit by this petitioner. The order involves eight persons and out of eight, seven persons have been granted relief, after the order of the writ Court, dated 28.01.2016, yet the respondents have adopted different yard-stick so far as this petitioner is concerned. This attitude of the respondents runs contrary to the litigation policy of the State. It appears that the litigation policy of the State is only glorifying the book containing such litigation policy. Respondents are acting in teeth of the litigation policy and instead of reducing the burden of litigation they are multiplying the litigation by compelling the employees to approach the writ Court to obtain similar order. In the facts and circumstances, indicated here-inabove, the respondent-District Programme Officer

Patna High Court CWJC No.16263 of 2016 (2) dt.06-02-2018 3/3 (Establishment), Nalanda at Biharsharif, is directed to ensure similar consequential relief to this petitioner as well on the line of similarly circumstanced seven other persons within a maximum period of sixty days, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

In the event of delay the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda at Biharsharif, is required to fix the accountability on the erring official(s) and shall be made responsible for payment of interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum, which is admissible to the petitioner in the event of delay in payment of salary beyond one month from the date of accrual to the date of actual payment.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) SA/- U