Baijnath Prasad vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 5915 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5731 of 2020
     ======================================================

Baijnath Prasad Son of Late Yamuna Prasad, Residence of Village Thakuwari Motihari, Near (Chitragupta Ashathan) P.S. Chhatouni District East Champaran Pin 845401 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar Patna.

2. The Deputy Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Patna.

3. Irrigation in Chief Minor Irrigation Department, Patna.

4. The Chief Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Gandak Colony Muzaffarpur

5. The Superintending Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Combined Building Muzaffarpur.

6. The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, Motihari Division, Motihari, East Champaran.

7. The Assistant Engineer Minor Irrigation Motihari Sub Division Motihari, East Champaran.

8. The Junior Engineer Minor Irrigation Motihari Sub Division East Champaran, Motihari.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr.Chitranjan Sinha (Paag2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-12-2021 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following reliefs:-

"A. A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order'/s, commanding the respondents for quashing the following:-

(i) To grant 1 st ACP and 2nd ACP to the petitioner since 1-1-1999 & 3rd ACP since 2009 to the petitioner forthwith.

(ii) To grant penal interest to the dues of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5731 of 2020 dt.07-12-2021

B. To any other relief/reliefs for which petitioner is entitled too."

3. Perusal of the counter statement, it is evident that the

petitioner has been extended first ACP. At the same time, it is stated

that petitioner is not entitled to second and third ACP in view of

certain circulars which are hurdle to the petitioner's grievance. If it is

so, the concerned respondent should have issued a speaking order as

to why petitioner is not entitled to second and third ACP as claimed

by him.

4. In the light of these facts and circumstances, 4th

respondent is hereby directed to pass a speaking order and

communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one month

from the date of receipt of this order. If the petitioner is, otherwise,

eligible , necessary action shall be taken in extending second and

third ACP including the monetary benefits within the aforesaid

period, failing which, 4th respondent will have to pay litigation cost

@ Rs. 10,000/-. The cost shall be paid from the pocket of the Chief

Engineer (4th respondent).

5. With the above observations, the instant petition stands

disposed of.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) rakhi/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          14.12.2021
Transmission Date