Patna High CourtCWJC/1791/2019dismissed

Lala Nand Mohan Prasad Ambastha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-02-01Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1791 of 2019 ====================================================== Lala Nand Mohan Prasad Ambastha Son of Late Ambika Prasad resident of Village- Kachahri Road Bhatgaon, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary-cum- Inspector General of Registration, Patna (Bihar).

3. The District Magistrate, Patna.

4. District Sub- Registrar, Barh, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prem Kumar Advocate Mr. Uma Shankar Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Sinha GA-1 Mr. Pawan Kumar AC to GA-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-02-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner who initially was appointed as an Extra Clerk was later regularized in service by government and he superannuated in the year 2000.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he needs to be paid the benefit of financial progression in terms of the Rules framed in that regard in the year 2003 as he was not given any promotion for twenty years that he served the department.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1791 of 2019(2) dt.01-02-2019 2/2 Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has contended that the Rules of financial progression, i.e. the A.C.P. Rules came in the year 2003 and the cadre rules were formulated in the year 2004 which required any person to be eligible for financial progression or promotion to pass departmental examination as well as accounts examination in particular. Since the beneficial scheme was brought into existence much after the superannuation of the petitioner, no direction in that regard can be issued to the respondents. There is no merit in the writ petition and thus the same is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) skm/- U