Surendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.169 of 2019 ====================================================== Surendra Prasad Singh Son of Late Vindeshwari Singh, Resident of Village - Ohari, P.O.- Ohari, P.S.- Nawada, In the district of Nawada, Retired Revenue Karamchari Pakribarawan Anchal in the District of Nawada. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Under Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Commissioner, Magadh Commissionary, Gaya. 4.

The Collector/District Officer, Nawada.

5.

The Deputy Collector Establishment Nawada.

6.

The Circle Officer, Pakribarawan Anchal, Nawada. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, AC to Gp15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 29-05-2019 Matter has been listed today in the Summer Vacations as the learned Counsel for the petitioner was desirous for consideration of his case during Vacation. The slip for listing was filed pursuant to notice dated 08th May 2019, published prior to the Vacation. The matter is, accordingly taken up for consideration as both parties are present and willing to assist the Court for disposal of the matter.

The short submission made by petitioner's Counsel is that his claim for grant of MACP made before the District

Patna High Court CWJC No.169 of 2019(2) dt.29-05-2019 2/2 Magistrate, Nawada, on 31.10.2018 (Annexure 2), has not been considered. The petitioner has retired in the year 2017 itself after serving the Collectorate as Revenue Karmchari and it is submitted that he is entitled to get the benefits under the MACP. Since the issue has to be considered by the District Magistrate, Nawada, respondent No. 4, the parties are in agreement that pendency of the writ petition would be of no avail.

In view of aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 to take a final decision on the claim of the petitioner (Annexure 2) by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Any due found admissible should also be paid within a period of one month thereafter. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U