Disposed

Tripurari Jee v. The Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Patna HC17 Apr 2013CWJC/7480/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a detailed representation with supporting documents before the Managing Director. The Managing Director was directed to decide the representation within six months by a reasoned order granting admissible reliefs without delay if warranted, after which the writ petition was disposed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file detailed representation; respondent directed to decide within six months by a reasoned order.

Tripurari Jee Vs The Bihar State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7480 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Tripurari Jee, S/O Sri Maheshwar Prasad Singh, at present residing at Saraswati Sadan, China Kothi, Vidyapati Marg, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar State Pharmaceutical & Chemical Development Corporation Limited, Mauryalok, Patna, through its Managing Director. 2. The Managing Director, the Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation Limited, Mauryalok, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.L.Jaiswal Mr. Rakesh Ranjan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶3

2 17-04-2013 The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents for granting him the benefits of 1^st Time Bound Promotion and other consequential benefits.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Production supervisor by the competent authority of the respondent Corporation. He claims that the petitioner is still in service of the respondent Corporation. He further submits that for redressal of his valid grievances, he filed representation before respondent no.2, as contained in Annexure-6, yet neither his valid grievances are being redressed nor representation filed by the petitioner is being disposed of.

¶5

After having heard the parties and in the given facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this matter pending any longer before this Court. However, interest of justice would be sub- served if the petitioner is granted liberty to file a detailed representation with all

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.7480 of 2013 (2) dt.17-04-2013

¶7

2/2

¶8

supporting documents before the respondent no.2 raising all the pleas, which have been raised in the present proceeding. It is ordered accordingly.

¶9

If such a representation is filed on behalf of the petitioner within a period of one month from today with all supporting documents and a certified copy of the present order, then the respondent no.2 shall be obliged to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order. If on consideration of materials the respondent no.2 comes to a conclusion that the grievances raised on behalf of the petitioner are admissible to him, then he shall further be obliged to issue consequential order for grant of admissible reliefs to the petitioner without any unnecessary delay.

¶10

Entire exercise must be completed by the respondent no.2 and/or any other competent authority of the respondent Corporation within a maximum period of six months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner.

¶11

The writ petition stands disposed of with the observations and directions made above.

¶12

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

¶13

BTiwary/-

Tripurari Jee v. The Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tripurari Jee v. The Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Dayanand Paswan Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Mrigendra Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Mandal @ Surendra Mandal Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Shushila Devi Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Zahiruddin Khan Vs The State Bank Of India Through Its Chairman and Ors.