Disposed

Geeta Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC25 Jan 2019CWJC/4005/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought parity in benefits granted to similarly situated employees. Court instructed respondent to consider entitlement within four weeks and dispose of represented application with reasoned order within three months, clarifying no merit determination.

What did the court decide?

To consider petitioner's claim for parity if a representation is filed within four weeks and to dispose of it with a reasoned order within three months.

Geeta Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4005 of 2014

¶2

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

¶3

Geeta Mishra W/O Late Binod Kumar Mishra Resident Of Village Ranipur, P.O. Vrindabad Ashram, P.S. Chanpatiya, Distt.- West Champaran

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary

¶7

The Secretary, Department Of Secondary, Primary And Adult Education, Bihar New Secretariat Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road Patna

¶8

The Deputy Secretary Department Of Secondary, Primary And Adult Education, Bihar New Secretariat Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road Patna

¶9

The Director, Mass Education, Govt. Of Bihar New Secretariat Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road Patna

¶10

The Joint Director, Mass Education, Govt. Of Bihar New Secretariat Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road Patna

¶11

The District Education Officer, Motihari, Distt. East Champaran

¶12

The District Education Superintendent, Motihari, East Champaran

¶13

The Area Education Officer, Motihari, Distt. East Champaran

¶14

The Block Development Officer, Turkoliya, East Champaran

¶15

The District Programme Officer Establishment, Motihari, East Champaran

¶16

The Section Officer, Public Grievance Cell Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶17

... ... Respondents

¶18

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

¶19

Appearance :

¶20

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Barun Kumar Choudhary Ms. Kumari Khusboo For the Respondent/s : Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, AC to AAG 3 ======================================================

¶21

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶22

6 25-01-2019

¶23

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

¶24

learned Counsel for the respondent State.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is squarely covered by the benefits granted in the case of similarly situated employee Smt. Ramlaxmi Mishra.

¶26

Counsel for the State places reliance on Annexure ‘A’ to the counter affidavit, to submit that the case of Smt. Ramlaxmi Mishra was not to be treated as precedent.

¶27

One letter dated 9.4.2014 issued by the Joint Director, Mass Education -cum- Public Information Officer, bearing No.

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.4005 of 2014(6) dt.25-01-2019 2/2

¶29

638, has been produced by the petitioner in Court today. He submits that in respect of at least six persons, other than Smt. Ramlaxmi Mishra, benefits has been granted who were similarly situated as the petitioner. Relying upon the said letter, petitioner has not submitted his claim seeking parity before any authority.

¶30

If the petitioner's claim is similarly situated as that of the beneficiaries, detailed in letter dated 9.4.2014, it is needless to say that he too would be entitled to the same benefits. The issue, however, has to be examined by the authorities.

¶31

In view of the circumstances, petitioner’s Counsel submits that highlighting parity with said persons, he would be submitting representation before respondent No. 4 claiming parity with the beneficiaries detailed in letter dated 9.4.2014.

¶32

In the event such an application is made within a period of four weeks from today, respondent No. 4 shall consider entitlement of the petitioner. The claim should be disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order and in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. This Court would clarify that anything, which has been stated in the order, may not be deemed to be an expression on merit of the claim of either parties.

¶34

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶35

SNkumar/-

¶36

Geeta Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Mishra 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

Chharpan Ram Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Anand Kumar Chowdhri Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pratibha Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Niteshwar Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Samiran Chowdhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bharat Ram Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.