← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/576/2017dismissed

Binod Kumar Pal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-04-11Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.576 of 2017 ====================================================== Binod Kumar Pal, Son of late Hari Prasad Pal, Resident of MohallaCharitraban, Buxar, Post + Police Station and District-Buxar. At Present Office Clerk, M.P. High School, Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Respurces Department (Secondary Education), New Secretariate, Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department (Secondary Education), New Secretariate, Bihar, patna

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, Budh Marg, Patna-1

4. The District Education Officer, District-Buxar

5. The Child Development Project Officer, (Establishment), Secondary Education, Buxar

6. The District Treasury Officer, District Buxar

7. The Headmaster, M.P. High School, Buxar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Naresh Sharma For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Madhaw Pd. Yadav- Gp23 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 11-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondents to pay allowances permissible to physically handicapped.

Referring Annexure-8 series learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is physically handicapped and as such he is entitled to payment of transport allowances in terms of policy decision of the State Government.

Patna High Court CWJC No.576 of 2017(2) dt.11-04-2018 2/2 From perusal of Annexure-8, it is apparently clear that those allowances is available to those who are blind or physically disabled i.e. disablement from upper part as well as lower part of the body. It should not be less than 40 per cent and on account of such disability, unable to move. Considering the disability of the petitioner, this court does not find the case of the petitioner falling in the category of physically handicapped, entitled to the benefit of movement allowances as per Annexure-8.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U