Roshan Pandit v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10408 of 2013 =========================================================== Roshan Pandit Son of Late Rambriksh Pandit, resident of village - Pipardaha, P.O. Sarsi, P.S. Paliganj, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Director, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna

3. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna

4. The District Magistrate, Patna

5. The Accountant General (A and E ) Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Murari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harish Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. Saurav, AC to AAG-10 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Limited grievance has been raised by the petitioner that though by a Notification, vide order dated 03.09.2005, the petitioner has been granted the benefit of Time Bound Promotion, but the monetary benefit has not been extended to him. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Director Agriculture, vide Memo. No. 815 dated 23.05.2013, has already intimated the District Magistrate, Patna to dispose of the claim of the petitioner and file a counter affidavit in this case.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10408 of 2013 dt.05-08-2016 2/2 The District Magistrate, Patna is directed to examine the Notification dated 3.9.2005 by which, it appears that, the petitioner has been given the benefit of Time Bound Promotion. When already a Notification has been issued thereby the petitioner has been granted the benefit of Time Bound Promotion, why the consequential benefit has not been extended to him.

This petition is disposed of with a direction if the petitioner has not been granted the consequential benefit as yet, the District Magistrate will examine his Office Order dated 3.9.2005 and take an action in accordance with law.

The petitioner has raised a grievance with regard to A.C.P.. If the petitioner is entitled to A.C.P., it goes without saying that he should be given aforesaid benefit within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 11.08.2016 Transmission Date