Patna High CourtCWJC/18725/2016disposed

Rajnath Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-01-31Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18725 of 2016 ====================================================== Rajnath Yadav Son of Late Muneshwar Yadav, Resident of Tilak Roy Ka Hata, P.O. Barka Rajpur, Police Station Simri, District Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through Secretary, H.R.D., Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Primary Education, H.R.D., Bihar, Patna

3. The Finance Secretary, Bihar, Patna

4. The District Education Officer, Munger

5. The Treasury Officer, Munger

6. The District Provident Fund office, Munger

7. The District Programme Officer, Munger.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar, AC to GP-20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 31-01-2018 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add District Programme Officer, Munger as party respondent no.7 during the course of the day.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is arbitrarily denial of the benefit arising out of promotion granted to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has been granted promotion but the consequential monetary benefit has not been given to the petitioner. If the petitioner has been granted promotion legally and validly, there

Patna High Court CWJC No.18725 of 2016(2) dt.31-01-2018 2/2 is no reason to deny the benefit arising out of such promotion. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent District Programme Officer, Munger to examine the claim of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner was legally and validly granted promotion, the benefit of such promotion must reach the petitioner and as such respondent no.7 is required to pass appropriate order with regard to claim of the petitioner and also required to see that the monetary benefit of such promotion must reach the petitioner within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U