Patna High Court
Subhadra Nath Prasad vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 15 July, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11294 of 2016
======================================================
Subhadra Nath Prasad Wife of Late Trilok Nath Prasad resident of B-34,
Vasisth Colony, Harnichak, P.O.- Anisabad. P.S. - Phulwari Shariff, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Agriculture Production Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Bihar State Agriculture marketing Board now repealed, through its
Administrator, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board now repealed,
Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manas Rajdeep, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kumar Uphadhaya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. AG to AAG-4
For the AG : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-07-2025
Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the
Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief/s:-
"I. For commanding the respondent
authorities to consider the case of the
husband of the petitioner for a second time
Patna High Court CWJC No.11294 of 2016 dt.15-07-2025
2/6
bound promotion after completion of
twenty five years of service as many
persons appointed along with the husband
of the petitioner have been granted the
second time bound promotion with effect
from due date.
II. For direction upon the respondent
authorities to pay all the consequential
benefit along with suitable interest after
extending the benefit of the second time
bound promotion payable to the husband of
the petitioner.
III. For quashing of the order contained in
Memo no. 1754 dated 4.6.2007 issued
under the signature of Director,
Agriculture, Government of Bihar, by
which the claim of the petitioner for second
time bound promotion has been rejected
without application of mind.
IV. Any other order or orders as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case be
granted to the petitioner."
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the husband of the petitioner was initially
appointed as Industrial Extension Supervisor in the year 1957
under the Industries Department. Senior counsel submits that in
Patna High Court CWJC No.11294 of 2016 dt.15-07-2025
3/6
the year 1964, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as
fresh on the post of Inspector, Weights and Measure. In the year
1972, the husband of the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Market Secretary B and with the formation of the Bihar State
Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as
"Board"), the service of the husband of the petitioner has been
placed under the disposal of the Board on deputation basis.
Senior counsel submits that on 31.01.1992, the husband of the
petitioner superannuated on the post of Market Secretary B and
that there was discrepancy in the pay scale of Market Secretary
A, Market Secretary B and Market Secretary of the Marketing
Board. Senior counsel submits that all 3 types of the Market
Secretary of the Marketing Board were getting different types of
pay scale. And it is due to this reason, the similarly situated
employees have moved before this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C.
No.6261 of 1985 which was disposed off vide order dated
05.12.1994
with a direction to the respondent authorities to pay
identical pay scale to all the Market Secretaries working in the
Board w.e.f 20.12.1985. Thereafter, the matter traveled up to
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the S.L.P preferred by the Board as
well as by the State was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2003.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further
Patna High Court CWJC No.11294 of 2016 dt.15-07-2025
submits that the husband of the petitioner was granted identical
pay scale w.e.f 20.12.1985 and all retiral benefits has been paid
accordingly. Senior counsel submits that for getting the retiral
benefits, the husband of the petitioner approached before this
Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.8653 of 2004 which was
disposed off vide order dated 02.08.2004. Thereafter, for
compliance of order dated 02.08.2004 passed in C.W.J.C.
No.8653 of 2004, husband of the petitioner filed M.J.C No.1593
of 2005 which was disposed off vide order dated 19.10.2005
with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority
concerned with respect to remaining grievance with full details,
which shall be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order.
Senior counsel further submits that similarly situated persons
who were appointed with the husband of the petitioner have
been granted second time bound promotion vide letter contained
in Memo No.5567 dated 27.06.1996, but the case of the husband
of the petitioner was not considered leading to filing of series of
representation before the competent authority. Petitioner also
filed representation before the competent authority in pursuance
of the order dated 19.10.2005. Senior counsel submits that the
petitioner is a widow and does not know the complication and
outcome of the order dated 04.06.2007 and under the wrong
Patna High Court CWJC No.11294 of 2016 dt.15-07-2025
advice, the petitioner filed representations before the department
and was waiting for the disposal of the same. Thereafter, vide
order dated 04.06.2007 contained in Memo no. 1754 (annexed
as Annexure-5), the claim of the petitioner for second time
bound promotion was rejected without application of mind then,
the petitioner moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing the
present writ petition for grant of relief(s).
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
submits that the case of the petitioner is related to inordinate
delay as according to him, the first cause of action for the
petitioner to sue has arisen on 05.12.1994, but the husband of
the petitioner has not opted to sue at that very period of time.
Counsel submits that the second cause of action has arisen when
the matter has been finally come to rest in the year 2003. Again
neither the husband of the petitioner nor the petitioner has
moved before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel further submits that
the claim of the petitioner has been rejected finally on
04.06.2007 and the petitioner has not moved before this Hon'ble
Court even after 2007 i.e. after rejection of her claim. And after
a period of 9 years, petitioner has moved before this Hon'ble
Court and filed the present writ petition. Counsel submits that
there is exorbitant delay in demanding claim by the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11294 of 2016 dt.15-07-2025
6. In the light of the submissions made, it
transpires to this Court that the husband of the petitioner had
opportunity in his lifetime, but he has never raised such claim
and after his death, finally the claim of the petitioner has been
rejected in 2007 and she sat over the matter for 9 years and
thereafter, moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing the present
writ petition.
7. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain
this writ petition due to inordinate delay on the part of the
petitioner's side. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17/07/2025
Transmission Date NA
