Ram Ekbal Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18399 of 2010 ====================================================== Ram Ekbal Prasad S/O Late Banaras Prasad R/O Vill.- Nanphar, P.S.- Madoda, Distt.- Chapra, Saran .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna

3. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Patna

4. Superintending Engineer, Mechanical, Irrigation Mechanical Circle, Muzaffarpur

5. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tara Nath Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to SC-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-05-2017 Heard Sri Tara Nath Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to Standing Counsel no.11. The petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to direct the Respondents to grant second time bound promotion with all financial benefits as well as to grant 2nd Assured Career Progression.

In this case, a counter affidavit was filed in the year 2011 itself on behalf of Respondent nos.3,4 and 5 wherein a stand regarding relief of 2nd time bound promotion was taken that the proposal for confirmation of Second

Patna High Court CWJC No.18399 of 2010 (2) dt.22-05-2017 2/3 Time Bound Promotion was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and it was forwarded by the Superintendent Engineer(Mechanical) Irrigation Circle, Muzaffarpur vide letter no.428 dated 09.04.2011. Thereafter, it was indicated that as soon as the second time bound promotion sanctioned to the petitioner is confirmed by the Water Resources Department, the proposal for revision of pension of the petitioner will be submitted to the Accountant General, Bihar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the counter affidavit, despite his best efforts, he has not been able to get any further instruction as to whether in view of statements made in the counter affidavit, consequential benefit has been granted to the petitioner or not. He submits that in such situation, the writ petition may be disposed of with observation that if any grievance still exists, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

Accordingly, there is no need to keep the matter pending. The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that if any grievance of the petitioner relating to the relief sought for in the present writ petition

Patna High Court CWJC No.18399 of 2010 (2) dt.22-05-2017 3/3 still exists, he would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

With above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U