Patna High Court
Mahendra Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 9 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7299 of 2021
======================================================
Mahendra Singh Son of Late Ram Pravesh Singh, Resident of Village Parriya,
P.O. Ketaki, P.S. Deo, District - Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, P.H.E.D., Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-In-Chief, P.H.E.D., Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Bihar, Patna.
5. The Superintendent of Engineer, P.H.E. Circle, Sasaram.
6. The Superintendent of Engineer, P.H.E. Circle, Gaya.
7. The Executive Engineer, P.H. Division, Aurangabad.
8. The Treasury Officer, Aurangabad.
9. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhukar Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore (AG)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-02-2022
The matter is heard via video conferencing due to
circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19
pandemic.
State counsel accept notice for respondents.
Copy to the petition shall be given to the State
counsel within a week from today.
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for
following reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7299 of 2021 dt.09-02-2022
"That this application is being filed
for direction upon the respondents to pay
the differences of salary differences of
pension gratuity and to give ACPs with its
benefit and confirm the service of the
petitioner by which promotion of the
petitioner is affected."
Aforesaid relief is not supported by representation.
For the purpose of issuance of writ of mandamus, one must
establish statutory right followed by demand before the
competent authority. In the absence of the aforesaid ingredients
in the present petition, the present petition is not maintainable in
the light of Apex Court's decision in the case of Mani Subrat
Jain V. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1977 SC
276.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of
reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation
as to how he is entitled to ACP and other benefits. If such
representation is submitted within a period of eight weeks, the
concerned authority is hereby directed to take note of the same
and the fact that petitioner has attained age of superannuation
and retired from service on 30.01.2009 and redress the
grievance of the petitioner within a period of three months from
the date receipt of petitioner's representation and extend all
monetary benefits (differences of salary and pension) and
Patna High Court CWJC No.7299 of 2021 dt.09-02-2022
further enhancement of gratuity. If the petitioner is otherwise
eligible, he is entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on arrears of
salary in the light of Apex Court's decision in the case of Vijay
L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2001) 9
Supreme Court Cases 687 (Para 2 to 4). Interest on arrears is
restricted to the extent that petitioner is entitled only from prior
to 3 years of filing of this petition till payment is made.
If the petitioner is not entitled in that event, necessary
orders shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
kamlesh/-
AFR/NAFR NA
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.02.2022
Transmission Date NA
