Sandip Kumar, v. The State Of Bihar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18123 of 2021 ====================================================== Sandip Kumar, Son of Late Ghanshyam Prasad Singh, Resident of Village - Amba, P.S. - Kutumba, District - Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Additional Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.
The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shiv Kumar For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Manish Kumar (GP-4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:
"That the present application is for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing Respondent authorities to fix the pay
2/4 of the petitioner at par with Lower Division Clerk as the petitioner's pay is fixed in the scale of Rs.3050/- and pay of other junior clerks are fixed in the scale of Rs.4000/- and they are getting more salary than the petitioner as the petitioner is getting his salary in the scale of Rs.5880/- and several other persons junior to the petitioner are getting the salary in the scale of Rs.7510/- and grade pay of petitioner is fixed Rs.1900/- and grade pay of several juniors to the petitioner are fixed as Rs.2400/-. It is relevant to state here that all the employees are in one cadre and whether the same can be discriminated or a cadre and whether the same can be discriminated or a cadre within cadre can be created by the State authorities and by fixing the pay in the scale of Rs.7510/- and grade pay of Rs.2400/-
3/4 to the petitioner as it is given to the other persons, the difference of salary be given to the petitioner accordingly.
And/or pass such other order or orders as your Lordships may think fit and proper."
Petitioner has also filed supplementary affidavit producing certain documents. Perusal of the entire papers, it is evident that petitioner has not filed representation demanding the relief sought in the present petition before the competent authority. For issuance of writ of mandamus, two ingredients are necessary, namely, legal/statutory right vested with the concerned person followed by demand before the competent authority, both the ingredients are not forthcoming in the present petition.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed in the light of Apex Court decision in the case of Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1977 (1) SCC 486, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the competent authority establishing his legal/statutory right that he is entitled to a particular pay scale on par with others. If such representation is submitted, the competent
4/4 authority is hereby directed to decide the petitioner's representation within a period of six months. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) Ankit/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25.02.2022 Transmission Date NA