Disposed

Bideshwar Nayak v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC29 Apr 2014CWJC/2981/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-payment of first and second Annual Confidential Reports (ACP) without filing representation. Court directed authorities to decide within 4 months upon filing representation but refrained from issuing immediate direction and expressed no opinion on merits of promotion claim due to lack of averment.

What did the court decide?

Direct petitioner to file a representation to the competent authority for grant of ACPs; authorities to decide within four months. No comment on merits of promotion claim.

Bideshwar Nayak Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2981 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Bindeshwar Nayak, S/O Late Sukhdeo Nayak, R/O Shankar Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, GP 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 29-04-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has a grievance with regard to non-payment of his first and second ACP and has filed this writ application even without filing any representation to the competent authority, this Court, for the time being, will not like to issue a direction to the authorities, but if the petitioner approaches the authorities by filing a representation with regard to grant of first and second ACP, an appropriate decision would be taken by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner.

¶3

Let it be made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner because there is

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.2981 of 2013 (2) dt.29-04-2014

¶5

2/2

¶6

no averment in the writ application as to whether the petitioner was granted the benefit of first time bound promotion to which he seems to be eligible in view of date of his appointment in the year 1985.

¶7

This Court would, however, hasten to add that as there is no issue raised with regard to first time bound promotion, nothing said in this order now entitling the petitioner to claim first time bound promotion as his grievance is only for consideration with regard to the prayer made in the writ application i.e. consideration of first and second ACP.

¶8

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.

¶9

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶10

Sujit/-

Bideshwar Nayak v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bideshwar Nayak 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

Ram Lochan Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Nitendra Prasad Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kumud Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Reena Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kailash Prasad Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Baikuntha Kumar Pathak Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.