Allowed

Gokul Prasad Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC11 Aug 2016CWJC/13083/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking a revised pay-scale for the petitioner, a retired Media man. The court held that since similar relief was granted to another Media man, Sri Bharat Singh, the same pay-scale must be provided to the petitioner. The petitioner was superannuated by the time of disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be granted the same pay-scale as previously granted to Sri Bharat Singh within three months.

Gokul Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13083 of 2011

¶2

====================================================== Gokul Prasad Yadav S/O Jagarnath Yadav R/O Vill. & P.O.- Bari Khanjarpur, P.S.- Barari, Distt.- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The Principal, Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Bhagalpur

¶3

.... .... Respondents

¶4

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shanti Pratap For the Respondent/s : AC to Addl. Advocate General - 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5. 11-08-2016 Heard Sri Shanti Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General – 4. In the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made a prayer to direct the respondents to pay revised pay to the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000 w.e.f. 01-01-1996 at par with the Laboratory Technician.

¶5

It has been claimed that the petitioner, being Media man, was performing the same duty, as of Laboratory Technician and as such, he is entitled to get the same scale.

¶6

Short fact of the case is that the petitioner was initially

¶7

appointed as Animal-keeper in Microbiology Department,

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.13083 of 2011 (5) dt.11-08-2016

¶9

2/4

¶10

Bhagalpur Medical College, Bhagalpur. Subsequently, he was posted as Laboratory Attendant and finally, by order contained in Memo no. C-89/202 dated 19-01-1989 issued under the signature of Principal, Bhagalpur Medical College, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Media man. A plea has been taken that one another Media man namely Sri Bharat Singh, on the ground that qualification for Media man & Laboratory Technician and nature of job were similar, claimed for the pay-scale of Laboratory Technician. Since his grievance was not redressed, he filed a writ petition before this Court, vide C.W.J.C. No. 7258 of 1997, which stood disposed of on 07-12-1998, with a direction to Director-inChief to take decision within specified time.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure – 9 to the present petition i.e. an order contained in Memo no. 22 dated 14-08-1999. It has been argued that the case of Bharat Singh, who was Media man, was considered and he was directed to be given the identical pay-scale, which was provided to Laboratory Technician. It has been argued that once in an identical situation, relief has been granted to one person, the petitioner is also entitled to get same relief. For the relief, which has been sought for in the present writ petition, the petitioner had filed representation before the authority concerned, however; no

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.13083 of 2011 (5) dt.11-08-2016

¶13

3/4

¶14

decision was taken and thereafter, he was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition, which was filed in the month of August, 2011. However, during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31-01-2014.

¶15

In this case, separate counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 3 & 4 and respondent no. 5 has been filed. In counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 & 4, it has been indicated that the Director-in-Chief by its letter dated 25-06-2012 had asked the Principal of the College that being competent authority, he was to grant the replacement scale of Rs. 1320-2040 to the petitioner w.e.f. 01-01-1996 and the Principal was directed to give the revised pay-scale to the petitioner and get approval thereafter.

¶16

In counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5/Principal, it has been stated that the petitioner, while functioning as Media man, has finally retired. It has also been indicated that the respondent no. 5/Principal had also requested the Director-inChief, Health Services, Bihar to clarify the claim of admissibility.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact, particularly; the fact that in case of one Bharat Singh, who was Media man like the petitioner, since the pay-scale was revised and directed to be paid similar to the pay-

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.13083 of 2011 (5) dt.11-08-2016

¶19

4/4

¶20

scale of Laboratory Technician, there is no reason to deny the same relief to the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly, in terms of order contained in Annexure

¶22

– 9 to the writ petition, which was issued in view of order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7258 of 1997, the writ petition is allowed with direction to provide the same scale to the petitioner, which was provided to Sri Bharat Singh, in view of Annexure – 9 to the writ petition.

¶23

The writ petition is allowed with all consequential

¶24

benefit.

¶25

All the formalities are required to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶26

(Rakesh Kumar, J.)

¶27

Anay

¶28

Gokul Prasad Yadav v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul Prasad Yadav 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gagandeo Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Satya Narayan Prasad Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arun Kumar Tiwary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Bachan Rai @ Ram Bachchan Ray @ Bachandeo Rai Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Bishnu Swarup Ray Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gajendra Kumar Singh @ Gajendra Singh @ Munmun Singh and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.