Disposed¶27

Vidyadhar Mishra v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Jul 2025CWJC/10247/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACP MACP parity discrimination Bihar Education Department SIET dissolution SCERT absorption superannuation 30.06.2013 mandamus reasoned speaking order 12 weeks letter no. 1103 dated 23.07.2007 memo no. 1190 dated 16.08.2020 Sudhir Kumar Sinha Ganesh Prasad Singh CWJC 994 of 2024 CWJC 4813 of 2017 Patna High Court Harish Kumar disposed 07-07-2025

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner's A.C.P./M.A.C.P. claim and pass a reasoned and speaking order preferably within 12 weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order; if the claim is identical to the similarly situated employees named in the judgment, similar relief must be accorded. ¶27

Vidyadhar Mishra Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents must be directed, by a writ of mandamus, to extend the benefit of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. to the petitioner. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Considering the petitioner's grievance based on parity and the materials on record, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent no. 2 to consider the petitioner's claim and dispose of it by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within 12 weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner's claim finds favour and is identical to those whose names were mentioned (employees granted A.C.P./M.A.C.P. pursuant to orders in C.W.J.C. No. 994 of 2024 and C.W.J.C. No. 4813 of 2017), similar relief must be accorded to the petitioner.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Harish Kumar, J), CWJC No. 10247 of 2025, decided 07-07-2025 (oral order). Petitioner, absorbed from SIET into SCERT after its dissolution and superannuated on 30.06.2013, sought mandamus for extension of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. benefits on parity with identically situated employees (Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha and Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh) who had obtained the benefit pursuant to this Court's orders in C.W.J.C. No. 994 of 2024 and C.W.J.C. No. 4813 of 2017. Reliance placed on Education Department letter no. 1103 dated 23.07.2007 (absorbed employees remain Government employees entitled to A.C.P./M.A.C.P.) and memo no. 1190 dated 16.08.2020 directing SCERT to sanction the benefit. Court disposed of the petition directing respondent no. 2 to decide the claim by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within 12 weeks, with similar relief to follow if the claim is identical.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10247 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Vidyadhar Mishra, Son of Late Ram Najar Mishra, Resident of MohallaB/185, Police Colony, Police Station- Gardanibagh, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary cum Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Additional Chief Secretary cum Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Director (Administration), Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Director, State Council of Education Research and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Addl. Advocate General (05)

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 07-07-2025 Heard the parties.

¶16

The petitioner approached this Court seeking

¶17

issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. for which the petitioner has been running before all the authorities concerned. Nonetheless, other identically situated persons have been extended the said benefits.

¶18

Mr. Nikesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that other identically situated persons, whose names have been mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of the writ

¶19

petition, they have been accorded the benefit of

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.10247 of 2025(2) dt.07-07-2025 2/3

¶21

A.C.P./M.A.C.P., however, discrimination has been caused and the petitioner who is identically situated, has been deprived without there being any justifiable reason. The Director Administration-cum-Joint Secretary, Education Department vide his letter no. 1103 dated 23.07.2007 had informed that the employees absorbed in different offices of the Education Department will continue to be a Government employee and will be entitled to the benefit of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. as per their seniority from the date of the appointment in SIET (State Institute of Educational Technology). After dissolution of the SIET, the services of the petitioner came to be absorbed in the SCERT (State Council of Educational Research and Training), from where the petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2013.

¶22

It has also been apprised that the Director Administration, Education Department vide memo no. 1190 dated 16.08.2020 directed SCERT to sanction A.C.P./M.A.C.P. to the petitioner as sanctioned to other similarly situated employees, namely Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha and Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh who have been accorded the respective A.C.P./M.A.C.P. benefit by virtue of the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 994 of 2024 and C.W.J.C. No. 4813 of 2017 respectively.

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.10247 of 2025(2) dt.07-07-2025 3/3

¶24

Learned Advocate for the State prays for a short adjournment to seek instruction and file counter affidavit.

¶25

Considering the grievance of the petitioner which is based upon parity and the materials available on record, this Court deems it fit and proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and dispose off the same by a reasoned and speaking order, taking note of the afore-mentioned facts preferably within a period of 12 weeks’ from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶26

In case the claim of the petitioner finds favour and identical to those whose names have been mentioned hereinabove, similar relief must be accorded to the petitioner.

¶27

The writ petition stands disposed.

¶28

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶29

supratim/-

¶30

Vidyadhar Mishra v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyadhar Mishra v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Murari Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Animal Husbandry Department Government of Bihar

Kumari Neelam Vs The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary

Janardan Mahto @ Jano Mahto @ Janardhan Mahto @ Jano @ Janardan Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Paras Nath Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Kumari Rita Bharti @ Rita Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Shanti Kumari Sinha Vs The State of Bihar