Abhishek Vinayak v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.384 of 2025 ====================================================== Abhishek Vinayak Son of Late Vindeshwari Prasad Sharma and Late Sushila Devi, Resident of Mohalla- Babutola, P.O.- Banka, P.S.- Banka, DistrictBanka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of BIhar, Patna.

3.

The Director (Administration-cum-Addl. Secretary), Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 5.

The District Education and Training Institution (DIET), Banka. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kr. Jha, Adv For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha- SC-26 Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra A.C to S.C. 26 Mr. Dixit Vinod, A.C. to S.C. 26 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 21-01-2025 Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mother of the petitioner namely Sushila Sharma stood retired from her service on 31.01.2017 and after one year of her retirement, she died on 09.02.2018 . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she served 38 year in the department however, even after her entitlement, she has not granted benefit of first, second and third A.C.P, for which during her life time, she made an application before the respondents which has not

Patna High Court CWJC No.384 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2025 2/2 been decided however after her death the petitioner who is son of the Sushila Sharma made an application vide Annexure- P-5 dated 17.03.2020 to the respondents but no decision has been taken by the respondents/competent authority till today. Therefore, it is prayed by the counsel that this petition may be disposed of, directing the respondent no.03 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner within the stipulated period fixed by this Court in accordance with relevant rules and law.

3. The above limited prayer made by the counsel does not oppose by the counsel for the respondent-State.

4. Considering the submissions made by both the counsels, the petition is disposed of. The respondent no. 03 is directed to consider and decide the pending representation Annexure- P-5, in accordance with relevant rules and law as early as possible probably within 90 days from the receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) krishnakant/- U