Disposed

Raj Kishore Upadhya and Anr. v. The Administrator Bihar State Road Transport Cor.and Ors.

Patna HC29 Apr 2013CWJC/8621/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two superannuated BSRDC employees filed a writ petition for directed promotion. The High Court directed the Corporation Administrator to separately record comprehensive representations and decide the claims within six months by a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Directions to file separate representations within four weeks and decide claims within six months.

Raj Kishore Upadhya and Anr. Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8621 of 2013

¶2

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

¶3

Raj Kishore Upadhya S/O Late Manda Prasad Upadhya Resident Of Mohalla- Dujara, Pahalwan Ghat P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna

¶4

Rajendra Prasad Yadav S/O Late Kamla Prasad Yadav Resident Of Mohalla- Kurji Kothiya, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna- 800001, Bihar

¶8

The Chief Of Administration, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar

¶9

The Chief Mechanical Engineer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar

¶10

The Workers Manager, Central Workshop, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Camp Jail, Fulwari Sarif, Patna

¶11

The Divisional Manager, Bankipur Division, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Bankipur, Patna

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Yash Singh

¶15

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

¶16

2 29-04-2013 Heard the parties.

¶17

The petitioners, two in number, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for granting them the benefits of 2^nd time bound promotion/ ACP and other incidental reliefs.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now both

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.8621 of 2013 (2) dt.29-04-2013

¶20

2/3

¶21

the petitioners have superannuated from service of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation ( In short “Corporation”) and for redressal of their valid grievances, as indicated in paragraph-1 of the present writ petition, they filed the representations before the respondent Administrator of the Corporation, yet neither their valid grievances are being redressed nor the representations filed on their behalf are being disposed of. It is further contended that in similar circumstances several other employees have recently been granted reliefs by order dated 23.08.2011 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent Administrator.

¶22

After having heard the parties and in the given facts of the case, both the petitioners are directed to file their representations separately with all supporting documents before the respondent No.1 raising all the pleas, which have been raised in the present proceeding within a maximum period of four weeks from today.

¶23

If such comprehensive representations are filed separately by each of the petitioners with a certified copy of the present order within the time prescribed, the respondent no.1 and/or any other competent authority of the Corporation shall be obliged to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶24

If on consideration of materials respondent no.1 and/or any other competent authority of the Corporation come to a conclusion that the claims raised on behalf of the petitioners are admissible to them, then consequential orders shall also be issued granting admissible relief to the petitioners, without any unnecessary delay.

¶25

Entire exercise must be completed by the respondent no.1 and/or any other competent authority within a maximum period of

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.8621 of 2013 (2) dt.29-04-2013

¶27

3/3

¶28

six months from the date of filing of the representations by each of the petitioners separately.

¶29

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

¶30

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

¶31

BTiwary/-

Raj Kishore Upadhya and Anr. v. The Administrator Bihar State Road Transport Cor.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kishore Upadhya and Anr. v. The Administrator Bihar State Road Transport Cor.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

Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs The Food Corporation Of India and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sanjay Ram Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Deep Narayan Jaiswal Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ranjeet Kumar Singh Vs The Central Bank Of India and Ors.

Braj Kishore Jha and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.