Patna High CourtCWJC/20764/2013dismissed

Taluk Raj Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-09-07Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20764 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Taluk Raj Sharma S/O Late Shri Raghubir Sharma Resident Of MohallaShivpuram, P.O- Bihar Vetenary College, P.S- Rupaspur, District- Patna, Bihar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Water Resources Department ( Irrigation Department), Government Of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Irrigation Building, Government Of Bihar

3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department Irrigation Building, Government Of Bihar.

4. The Finance Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Joint Secretary, Finance (Personal Cum Settlement Cell), Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

6. The Additional Secretary, Finance (Personal Claim Settlement Cell), Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

7. The Deputy Secretary, Finance (Personal Clami Settlement Cell), Government Of Bihar, Patna.

8. The Accountant Genera, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Roy, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Ashish Kumar Lal, AC to GA-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-09-2017 The petitioner, in the present writ application has challenged Annexure-7 to the present writ application, by which, his claim for non-payment of increment for the period of 1986 to 1994, has been rejected. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, on 04.02.1991, giving him benefit from 01.04.1985. The petitioner was expected to clear departmental and professional examination within a period of three years from

Patna High Court CWJC No.20764 of 2013 (2) dt.07-09-2017 2/2 04.02.1991 for getting the entitlement of the increment as per the P.W.D. rule. The petitioner had cleared the said examination in the year 1998, much after the period of three years, hence he has not been granted the increment, which is being claimed by him. If the petitioner would have cleared the said departmental and professional examination between 1991 to 1994, he would have been entitled for the said increment.

I find no infirmity in the order, passed by Anneuxre-7, in pursuance of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17992 of 2011. The present writ application filed on behalf of the petitioner stands dismissed.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- U