Patna High CourtCWJC/1670/2018disposal with observation

Rakesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-12-14Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1670 of 2018 ====================================================== Rakesh Rai, Son of Late Paras Nath Rai, Resident of Village- Bethi Balirampur, P.O.- Kamarpur, P.S.- Buxar, District- Buxar. Presently working as Accounts Clerk, Laghu Sinchai Pramandal, Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Under Secretary to the Government, Water Resources Department Bihar, Patna.

5. The Chief Engineer, Laghu Jal Sansadhan Department Patna.

6. The Additional Secretary, Laghu Jal Sansadhan Department Patna.

7. The Superintending Engineer, Laghu Sinchai Anchal Patna.

8. The Executive Engineer, Laghu Sinchai Pramandal, Buxar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, AC to SC11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 14-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In this case, the petitioner is claiming that he has wrongly been given the pay-scale of Junior Accounts Clerk on account of being appointed on compassionate ground but, the other similarly situated Accounts Clerks, after merger, remained in the scale of Senior Accounts Clerk.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this issue has already been decided by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12124 of 2011 (The State of Bihar Vs. Ram Janam Jha & Ors.), affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 206 of 2014.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1670 of 2018 dt.14-12-2018 2/2 Let the case of the petitioner be also considered in the light of the aforesaid judgment and order, if the law, fact and prayer are identical in both the cases, the present petitioner will also be granted the same benefit as has been given to the petitioners of the aforesaid case. The decision must be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.12.2018 Transmission Date