Uttam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.294 of 2025 ====================================================== 1.

Uttam Kumar Son of Late Vidya Sagar Singh, Resident of Nayagaon, Police Station- Nayagaon, District- Saran.

2.

Sonu Kumar Sah, Son of Late Kashi Nath Sah, Resident of Devpura, Police Station - Rasulpur, District- Saran.

3.

Ranjan Kumar Sah Gond, Son of Late Gautam Sah, Resident of VillageAliaspur, Police Station - Bangra, District- Saran. 4.

Manish Kumar, Son of Late Avadhesh Kumar Nirala, Resident of Village and Post- Jilkabad, Police Station- Garkha, District- Saran. 5.

Sangita Kumari, Daughter of Late Amit Kumar, Resident of Chhoti Sangat, Police Station- Barbigha, District- Saran.

6.

Jyotsna Kumari, Wife of Late Prakash Pandey, Resident of Giri Tola, Kataharibag, Police Station- Chapra Town, District- Saran. 7.

Hridya Ranjan Kumar, Son of Late Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Resident of Village- Hansrajpur Khurd, Police Station- Baniyapur, District- Saran. 8.

Rahul Kumar, Son of Late Suresh Choudhary, Resident of Village- Katra Baradari, Police Station- Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran. 9.

Dipak Prakash Srivastava, Son of Late Suresh Kumar Srivastava, Resident of Village and Post- Sahtwar, District- Balia, Uttar Pradesh. 10.

Shantanu Kumar, Son of Late Parmeshwar Ram, Resident of Village and Post- Kamariyawn, Police Station- Tiyar, District- Bhojpur. 11.

Kanhaiya Kumar Singh, Son of Late Chandramohan Singh, Resident of Village- Pure Chapra, Post- Bhatha Sonho Police Station- Parsa, DistrictSaran. 12.

Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Late Shrawan Kumar Singh, Resident of VillageSadhpur, Post- Sonia, Police Station- Daudpur, Manjhi, District- Saran. 13.

Prem Prakash Singh, Son of Late Mangal Singh, Resident of Village and Post- Kopa, Police Station- Kopa, District- Saran. 14.

Priya Ranjan, Son of Late Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, Resident of Shiv Bazar, Police Station- Bhagwan Bazaar, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Saran at Chapra. 4.

The District Compassionate Appointment Committee through its Chairman the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Saran. 5.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Saran.

Patna High Court CWJC No.294 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2025 2/3 6.

The District Account Officer, Saran.

7.

The District Treasury Officer, Saran.

8.

The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Saran Collectorate, Saran. 9.

The District Supply Officer, Saran.

10.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhaura, Saran.

11.

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Marhaura, Saran. 12.

The Block Development Officer, Baniapur, Saran. 13.

The Circle Officer, Baniapur, Saran.

14.

The Additional Collector, District Revenue Office, Saran. 15.

The Block Development Officer, Lahladpur, Saran. 16.

The Senior Deputy Collector, District Empowerment of Person with Disabilities Cell, Collectorate, Saran.

17.

The Officer on Special Duty, District of Confidential Branch, Collectorate, Saran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gyan Prakash, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Pushpanjali Sharma, AC to SC (20) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 20-01-2025 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of petitioner is covered by judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 1335/2020. Therefore, they are also entitled to get higher pay scale as mentioned in (i) of Para 1 of the present writ petition. He further submit that in the light of the said judgment passed by the Division Bench many persons have already been granted benefit of higher pay scale which is mentioned in Annexure P11 series. Lastly, he submits that they may be permitted to make

Patna High Court CWJC No.294 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2025 3/3 a fresh representation before the concerned respondents and the concerned respondents in turn be also directed to decide their claim accordingly.

2. Counsel for the State do not oppose the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. She submits that if this Court directs, the application submitted by the petitioners would be decided by the concerned authorities within 60 days from the submission of such application.

3. Considering the submissions put forth by counsels for both the parties, this writ petition is disposed of, liberty is granted in favour of the petitioners to make a fresh representation before the respondent no. 5 raising all grounds which they raised in this writ petition, it will done within three weeks from today and on submission of such representation the respondent no. 5 is also directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with relevant rules and laws and further taking into consideration the observation made by this Court in CWJC No. 1335/2020.

With the aforesaid observation this writ petition is disposed of.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) Siddharth Soni/- U