Disposed

Brijnandan Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC12 Aug 2010CWJC/2116/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Bench of Navin Sinha, J. issued a writ mandating the State of Bihar to consider the petitioner's claim of discriminatory denial of pay scale revision compared to a co-employee. The court ordered a reasoned decision with payment of dues within four months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to dispose of grievance via reasoned order within four months and pay legitimate dues if claim justified.

Brijnandan Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2116 of 2010

¶2

BRIJNANDAN PRASAD S/O BAIDHNATH PRASAD R/O VILL NURA (NAWKA TOLA),SANSARAIYA,P.O.DHUMNAGAR,VIABELABAGH,DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN

¶3

Versus

¶4

THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶5

THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER,BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT BIHAR,PATNA

¶6

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY,BUILDING CONSRUCTION DEPARTMENT BIHAR,PATNA

¶7

THE CHIEF ENGINEER ,BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT BIHAR,PATNA

¶8

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ,BUILDING CIRCLE MOTIHARI 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ,BUILDING CONSTRUCTION &AWAS DIVISION (BUILDING) BETTIAH

¶9

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE BIHAR,PATNA

¶10

¶11

2. 12.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶12

the State.

¶13

It is submitted that the petitioner and one Arun Kumar were initially appointed on the post of Electrician. They were regularized on 26.11.1981 in the pay scale of Rs. 180-242/-. From 31.12.1981, the Finance Department revised the pay scale of Electrician as Rs. 220-315/-. Both the petitioner and Arun Kumar filed application in 1995 separately for the revised pay scale. It was allowed to Arun Kumar on 21.9.1995, while

¶14

the petitioner’s application remains pending.

¶15

Counsel for the State urges delay in the petitioner moving for relief.

¶16

Issues of delay are irrelevant where constitutional rights are concerned. If the petitioner has

¶17

¶18

been subjected to hostile discrimination vis-à-vis Arun Kumar similarly situated, it was the obligation of the respondents to pay him the enhanced pay scale.

¶19

It appears from the Letter No. 140 dated 26.9.2006 that the factual assertions of the petitioner have been found to be prima facie correct by the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Bettiah.

¶20

Let the respondents consider the grievances of the petitioner and dispose it off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶21

It is expected that if the respondents find justification in the claim or any part of the claim, they shall pay him his legitimate dues within the aforesaid period.

¶22

The writ application stands disposed.

¶23

P. Kumar

¶24

( Navin Sinha, J.)

Brijnandan Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijnandan Prasad v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hazari Mahto Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kumari Rashmi @ Rashami Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Randhir Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Nand Kishore Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Nawal Kishore Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.