Surendra Mistry v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11290 of 2025 ====================================================== Surendra Mistry S/o Ramchandra Mistry, R/o Vill.- Kanchanpur, P.S.- Bihta, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Engineer-in-Chief-Cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.

The Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

6.

The Chief Engineer (North), Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

7.

The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Structure Circle, Patna.

8.

The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Structure Division-1, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Siyaram Pandey For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Government Pleader (27) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 24-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents-State.

2. It is submitted by the petitioner that petitioner has appointed on the post of driver in the year of 1984. After competition of his services, he superannuated in the year of 2023. As per the relevant rules, he is entitled for benefit of first, second and third ACP and MACP after competition of twelve

Patna High Court CWJC No.11290 of 2025(2) dt.24-07-2025 2/2 years, twenty years and thirty years respectively. According to the counsel, none of the benefit of any ACP and MACP has been given to the petitioner. Lastly, he submits that raising his claim he has already made his representation before the respondent vide (Annexure P/8) which has been not considered and decided by the respondent yet. Therefore, it is prayed by the counsel that this petition may be disposed of directing the concerned respondent to consider and decide the same within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.

3. The above prayer made by the counsel is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents-State.

4. Taking into consideration the submission made by the both the counsels, the petition is disposed of. The respondent no. 02 is directed to consider and decide and pass a reasoned order on the representation submitted by the petitioner i.e. (Annexure-P/8) as early as possible probably within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) krishnakant/- U