Disposed

Suresh Prasad Sharma v. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Patna HC24 Apr 2013CWJC/8288/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the Managing Director regarding a promotion claim. The Court directed the authority to consider the claim within six months and pass a reasoned order without delay.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a comprehensive representation with supporting documents; the authority directed to consider the claim within six months and pass a reasoned order.

Suresh Prasad Sharma Vs The Bihar State Food… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8288 of 2013

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Suresh Prasad Sharma S/o late Kageshwar Sharma, R/o village- Kaithir, P,.S. Hasua, District- Nawada at present Senior Assistant in the District Office of State Food Corporation, Dhanbad and posted at Bokaro.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhavan 5th Floor Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna through its Managing Director.

¶8

The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Sone Bhavan 5th Floor, Veer Chand Patel Path, Patna

¶9

The Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director

¶10

The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

¶11

The District Manager, State Food Corporation, Dhanbad

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. B.K. Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.S.Pradhan, Sr. Advocate Mr. A.N. Rai, Advocate

¶15

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 24-04-2013 Heard the parties.

¶17

The petitioner has filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents for consideration of his claim for grant of promotion on the post of Assistant Manager of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (in short Corporation) with effect from 28.2.2009 and for other incidental reliefs admissible to him.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is posted and working as Clerk-cum-Assistant under the respondent-Corporation with effect from 29.5.1976, and though

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.8288 of 2013 (2) dt.24-04-2013

¶20

2/3

¶21

the petitioner is working on that particular post for the last 37 years, yet his claim for promotion on higher post of Assistant Manager is not being considered and decided by the respondentManaging Director, although, according to him, the petitioner is legally entitled for such promotion, and even persons junior to him have been granted such promotion on the higher post. By referring to Annexure-5 it has been pointed that the petitioner has filed his representation before the respondent-Managing Director, yet till date neither his valid grievance has been redressed nor his representation has been disposed of.

¶22

After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, 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 comprehensive representation with all supporting documents raising all the pleas, which have been raised in the present proceeding before the respondent-Managing Director of the Corporation. It is ordered accordingly.

¶23

If such a comprehensive representation is filed on behalf of the petitioner with all supporting documents and a certified copy of the present order within a period of one month

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.8288 of 2013 (2) dt.24-04-2013

¶25

3/3

¶26

from today, then the respondent-Managing Director and/or any other competent authority shall be obliged to consider and decide his claim in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶27

If, on consideration of the materials, the respondent no. 2 and/or any other competent authority come to a conclusion that the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner are admissible to him, then consequential order shall also be issued without any unnecessary delay.

¶28

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

¶29

This writ application stands disposed of with the observations and directions made above.

¶30

RPS/-

¶31

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Suresh Prasad Sharma v. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Prasad Sharma v. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

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

Rajendra Deo Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Savita Devi and Anr. Vs the Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Chandan Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Bihar State Local Bodies Emp.F Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Suraj Amrit Raj Vs The Bihar State Bidhyut Board and Ors.

Chandrika Prasad Singh Vs The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.