Ashish Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1043 of 2020 ====================================================== Ashish Kumar Sinha S/o Late Krishna Vijendra Sinha Resident of Rajbanshi Nagar, Road No.-1 (Extension) PS-Shastri Nagar. District Patna, Presently Working on the Post of Computer at Agriculture Research Institute. Lohianagar, Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Agriculture Producation Commissioner, Patna. 2.

Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour through its Registrar. 3.

Vice Chancellor Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour. 4.

The Registrar Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour. 5.

Director Administration Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, 6.

Comptroller Bihar Agricultural University Sabour 7.

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Bihar through the Registrar, Pusa, Samastipur.

8.

The Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, District-Samastipur.

9.

The Director Administration, Dr. rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, 10.

Comptroller, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa Samastipur.

11.

The Regional Director, Agriculture Research Institute Lohianagar, Patna, Under Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kishore Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Raghwanand (GA-11) For the University :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocates For Resp. Nos. 7 to 11 :

Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocates Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 17-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by discrimination in the matter of grant of MAPC, ACP and benefit of 7th pay revision admissible w.e.f. 1.1.2016.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1043 of 2020(2) dt.17-02-2020 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that similarly circumstanced even persons appointed after the petitioner has been granted such benefit. If the contention of the petitioner is correct, the court failed to understand the discrimination meted out to the petitioner. Instead of keeping the matter pending, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the University to adopt corrective measures and if it is found that similarly circumstanced persons have been extended the benefit of ACP/MACP and benefit of 7th PRC, the same may be extended to the petitioner without any discrimination. Decision in this regard must be taken by the respondents within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/- U