Allowed

Mukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 May 2023CWJC/2883/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by an employee reverted from Junior Accounts Clerk to Lower Division Clerk was allowed. The Patna High Court quashed the impugned orders, held they were illegal, and directed the return of recovered amounts and entitlement to consequential benefits based on previous judgments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed; impugned orders set aside; directed to return recovered amounts within three months; petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits.

Mukesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2883 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Mukesh Kumar, S/o Late Ram Sharan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Bhusunda Near Devi Sthan, P.S.- Manpur, District- Gaya, at present posted as Junior Accounts Clerk, Minor Irrigation Division, Gaya.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Additional Secretary, Minor Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Chief Engineer, Minor Water Resources Department (Minor Irrigation), Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The Superintendent Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Works Circle, Gaya.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Circle, Gaya.

¶13

... ... Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Shally Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, GP-16 Mr. Yatindra Narayan, AC to GP-16

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 11-05-2023

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶19

counsel for the State.

¶20

2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking the following

¶21

reliefs:-

¶22

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing of the office order dated 18.8.2017 as contained in Annexure-4 whereby the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Junior Account Clerk/Lower Division Accounts clerk to the post of Lower Division clerk on the ground, that he was appointed on

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.2883 of 2020 dt.11-05-2023 2/6

¶24

compassionate ground in the pay scale of Rs.3050/4500/- which is now corresponding scale of Lower Division Clerk.

¶25

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing of order dated 19.12.2019 contained in Annexure-15 whereby rejected the claim of the petitioner by the respondent no.4.

¶26

(iii) For declaration that the pay scale is attached to the post held by employee are entitled for the pay scale for the post on which he was appointed and regularized.

¶27

(iv) For issuance of appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent to be in the teeth of decision taken by District Appointment Committee so also in the teeth of order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 1702 of 2017 as contained in annexure-5/1 whereby the Hon’ble Court upheld that order dated 21.8.2017 passed in CWJC No. 9921 of 2017 and its analogous cases contained in annexure’5 the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to hold that all accounts clerk whether appointed on compassionate ground or otherwise to be entitled for the same pay scale.

¶28

(v) Any other order/orders for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶29

Brief facts of the case

¶30

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk/Junior Division Accounts Clerk under Minor Irrigation Division, Gaya on compassionate ground vide Order No. 216 dated 29.01.2002 issued under the signature of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Patna.

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.2883 of 2020 dt.11-05-2023 3/6

¶32

4. The further case of the petitioner is that the matter relating to the pay scale of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk was in dispute since merger of the two posts and de-merger of the post of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk. This dispute was settled by the Resolution No. 3111(V) dated 25.03.2015 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Bihar by which those who were appointed till 27.09.1999 were given the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/with effect from 01.01.1996 and the corresponding revised pay scale but those who were appointed on or after 28.09.1999 were given the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- and revised pay in pay band of Rs.2400/-.

¶33

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

¶34

5. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was appointed after 27.09.1999, so he comes in the category of lower scale of Rs.4000-6000/- as per government’s decision. The petitioner was given the said scale and its revised pay scale by order as contained in Annexure ‘3’ and ‘3/1’ to the writ application. The District Accounts Officer confirmed the pay scale and consequential pay fixation order was also issued.

¶35

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the Executive Engineer took a unilateral decision whereunder the petitioner has

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.2883 of 2020 dt.11-05-2023 4/6

¶37

been reverted from the post of Junior Accounts Clerk to the Lower Division Clerk on the ground that the scale of Lower Division Clerk is corresponding to the scale of Rs.3050-4500/- on which compassionate appointment is to be given.

¶38

7. It is submitted that the identical controversies which were raised with similarly situated persons like the petitioner came for consideration before this Court in the case of Binit Kumar and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. (in CWJC No. 9921 of 2017 and other analogous matters) and in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ram Janam Jha and Others (LPA No. 206 of 2014).

¶39

8. It is submitted that in case of Binit Kumar (supra) a learned coordinate Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the Finance Department resolution no. 3111 dated 25.03.2015. This Court found the action of the State in reverting the persons similarly situated to the petitioner illegal and the impugned orders by which they were reverted to the Lower Division Clerk were quashed.

¶40

9. Learned counsel submits that recently in a similarly situated matter in the case of Roushan Kumar Jha and Others Vs. the State of Bihar and Anr. (in CWJC No. 13990 of 2018) , this Court vide its order dated 05.04.2023 directed the Principal

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.2883 of 2020 dt.11-05-2023 5/6

¶42

Secretary, Water Resources Department and the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar to sit together and resolve the issues after finding out as to whether the case of the petitioners in the said case were covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Binit Kumar (supra) or not. This Court has also shown concern for the departments of the government not acting in terms of the Bihar Litigation Policy by applying the judgments which have settled the legal position in a particular subject.

¶43

10. It is submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court, reliefs have been granted to the petitioners in CWJC No. 13990/2018. Similar directions have been prayed for.

¶44

Submissions on behalf of the State

¶45

11. Mr. Yatindra Narayan, learned AC to GP-16 was given an opportunity to examine as to whether the case of the petitioner would be covered by the judgment of this Court in Binit Kumar & Others (Supra) or not .

¶46

12. Learned counsel for the State has admitted at the bar that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the judgment of this in case of Binit Kumar (supra) and Ram Janam Jha (supra).

¶47

Patna High Court CWJC No.2883 of 2020 dt.11-05-2023 6/6

¶48

Consideration

¶49

13. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there being an admitted position that the issue has been resolved in the aforementioned judgments of Binit Kumar and others (Supra) and Ram Janam Jha (Supra).

¶50

14. This writ application is allowed.

¶51

15. The impugned orders are set-aside. The respondents are directed to return the amounts which have been recovered from the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The petitioner shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits.

¶52

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶53

lekhi/-

¶54

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	12.05.2023
Transmission Date

Mukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

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

Nitish Kumar Vs The Union of India

Rita Devi Vs The State Bank of India, The Managing Director

Sayara Khatoon @ Shayara Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Ramjatan Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Vs The Honble Patna High Court

Ranjan Kumar Chauhan Vs The State of Bihar