Disposed¶44

Manohar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Apr 2025CWJC/3019/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACP / time bound promotion claim by son of Bihar clerk who died in harness (07.10.2000); challenge to rejection letter Annexure-9 dated 15.04.2017 (Memo No.465); earlier CWJC No.20801 of 2012 dismissed for delay with liberty; disposal steered by Full Bench ruling in Kamlanand Thakur (28.06.2024, CWJC No.18727 of 2017) on departmental examination vs ACP benefits; petition disposed with liberty for fresh representation before DM, Saran, to be decided within 90 days; applicability of General Clauses Act, 1897 left open; nothing decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before Respondent no.2 (District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra), to be decided afresh within 90 days in the light of the Full Bench decision in Kamlanand Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; nothing decided on merits.

Manohar Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the 1st and 2nd time bound promotion and ACP benefits w.e.f. 09.08.1999 with all consequential benefits for his father who died in harness in the year 2000, and whether the rejection letter dated 15.04.2017 (Annexure-9) is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The Court observed that the petitioner's cause of action arose only after the death of his father, as the Assured Career Progression Scheme came in the year 2003 w.e.f. 1999.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Since the authorities had had no earlier opportunity to consider the Full Bench judgment in Kamlanand Thakur (decided 28.06.2024), it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass any order without their consideration of that judgment.

¶43

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra (Respondent no.2), who shall decide it afresh within 90 days in the light of the Full Bench decision in Kamlanand Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.ratio¶44
The Court made clear that it has not decided anything on merit; the issue is left to be decided completely in accordance with law, including the applicability of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Full Bench decision in Kamlanand Thakur.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J.), Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3019 of 2018, decided 17-04-2025. The son of a Lower Division Clerk (joined 10.05.1965 in the office of the BDO, Siwan; died in harness on 07.10.2000 while posted as Assistant under Sonepur prakhand, Saran) sought the 1st and 2nd time bound promotion and ACP benefits w.e.f. 09.08.1999 under the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003, and quashing of Memo No.465 dated 15.04.2017 (Annexure-9) rejecting the claim for non-fulfilment of conditions in Letter No.3/R-1-10191-Ka-4674 dated 15.05.1992. An earlier writ petition (CWJC No.20801 of 2012) had been dismissed on 26.11.2012 for inordinate delay, with liberty to pursue the representation. Noting that the Full Bench of the Court decided on 28.06.2024 in Kamlanand Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar (CWJC No.18727 of 2017, para 48) that departmental examination requirements (Rule 157(3)[J], Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958) do not apply to grant of A.C.P. benefits, and that the authorities had had no opportunity to consider that judgment, the Court declined to rule on merits, disposed of the petition with liberty to file a fresh representation before the District Magistrate, Saran, to be decided afresh within 90 days in light of the Full Bench decision, leaving open the applicability of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3019 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Manohar Kumar Son of Late Ghanshyam Singh, resident of MohallaDahiyawan- Jagdamba Road, Chapra, P.S.- Chapra Town, District- Saran.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.

¶8

The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Saran at Chapra.

¶9

The Senior Deputy Collector, District Legal Section, Saran at Chapra.

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Sonepur, Saran.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad (SC-8) ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 17-04-2025

¶16

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:-

¶18

“I. For directing the Respondent no.2 to grant the 1^st and 2^nd time bound promotion as well as benefits of A.C.P which came in the year 2003 w.e.f 09.08.1999 with all consequential benefits to the father of the petitioner who died in harness in the year 2000.

¶19

II. For quashing of the letter dated

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.3019 of 2018 dt.17-04-2025 2/9

¶21

15.04.2017 contained in Memo No.465 (annexed as Annexure-9) issued by Respondent no.3 whereby the claim of the petitioner has not been allowed stating that father of the petitioner not fulfill the condition stipulated in Letter No.3/R-1-10191-Ka-4674 dated 15.05.1992 which is without application of mind and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶22

III. For grant of any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner is entitled.”

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk and joined the post on 10.05.1965 in the office of Block Development Officer, Siwan and he served in the department with full devotion, honesty and integrity to the satisfaction of the authority. Counsel submits that when petitioner’s father was posted as Assistant under Sonepur prakhand of Saran District, he died on 07.10.2000 during course of his service. Petitioner’s father rendered his service for more than 35 years in the aforesaid department of the State Government. Counsel submits that the service condition applicable upon the petitioner’s father is Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 and the said

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.3019 of 2018 dt.17-04-2025 3/9

¶25

scheme came into existence w.e.f 09.08.1999. Counsel submits that though, petitioner’s father died in the year 2000, but being the son, he filed representation before the District Magistrate, Saran on 22.12.2010 stating that his father had passed Hindi Noting & Drafting examination as per law and therefore, he was entitled for 1^st time bound promotion w.e.f. 01.04.1981 and 2^nd time bound promotion w.e.f. 10.05.1990 after completion of 25 years of his service which has not been granted to him. Counsel further submits that when the claim of petitioner’s father was not settled by the respondent authorities, then the petitioner moved before this Hon’ble Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20801 of 2012 (Manohar Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in which vide order dated 26.11.2012, the writ petition was dismissed in view of inordinate delay in approaching the Court and it was also observed that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case but liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue his representation, if so advised, and if done, the concerned authority may dispose of the same in accordance with law on its own merits.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has filed several representations before Respondent no.2 for redressal of his grievances vide

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.3019 of 2018 dt.17-04-2025 4/9

¶28

Annexure-4 series and thereafter, petitioner has filed legal notice. Counsel submits that subsequently, in the year 2017 vide letter dated 15.04.2017 contained in Memo No.465 (annexed as Annexure-9), claim of the petitioner has not been considered and rejected without application of mind and the petitioner has challenged the said letter in this writ petition. Counsel submits that the said letter is basically a non-jurisdictional error, as it has been passed by the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Saran at Chapra and it ought to be passed by the District Magistrate, Saran only. Counsel further submits that this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 16.04.2003 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1453 of 2003 has allowed the benefit of promotion to one other employee namely, Md. Shamsul Hoda. Counsel submits that petitioner’s father has entitlement to receive the ACP and therefore, relief may be granted to the petitioner by setting aside Annexure-9 which is a letter dated 15.04.2017 contained in Memo No.465.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that it is a clear cut stand of the petitioner that his father was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk and joined the post in the year 1965 and after completion of 35 years, he died on 07.10.2000 during course of his service. Counsel submits

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.3019 of 2018 dt.17-04-2025 5/9

¶31

that this Hon’ble Court has not considered the petitioner’s application in CWJC No.20801 of 2012 on merit but, liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue the representation before the authority concerned. Counsel further submits that according to the then rule, petitioner’s father has to appear repeatedly in the departmental examination, but become unsuccessful or due to Government reason, he could not appear in the examination or after completion of 50 years of age particularly when, examination could not be completed for earlier 5 years, then only exemption has been provided to the State employee and petitioner’s father was entitled for the benefit. Counsel further submits that the petitioner’s father did not fulfill the said criteria which was available at that very period of time and as such, his case was not considered for promotion. Counsel relied on Annexure-E to the counter affidavit which categorically indicates that for exemption from departmental examination, no letter was present. It could not be ascertained that whether in the departmental examination, the father of the petitioner appeared continuously. It has also been mentioned that during service, 50 years of age was completed by petitioner’s father on 04.01.1994. Counsel submits that it has also come that there was no restriction from the Government’s side due to which he has

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.3019 of 2018 dt.17-04-2025 6/9

¶33

been stopped for appearing in the examination and it has been acknowledged that the departmental examination used to take place every year.

¶34

In the light of the submission made and after hearing the parties as well as perusal of the documents, it transpires to this Court that the cause of action for the petitioner to sue has arisen after death of his father, as the said scheme i.e. Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) has come in the year 2003 w.e.f 1999. It also transpires to this Court that the petitioner after his father’s death, has moved before this Hon’ble Court in the year 2012 and this Hon’ble Court has refused to interfere on merit of the case and only liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue the representation before the authority concerned. Petitioner thereafter, filed representation before the authority concerned and they verified and rejected the claim of the petitioner with reasons assigned in the counter affidavit.

¶35

This Court hereby acknowledge the order no.3 dated 19.09.2023 passed in this case in which it was directed that the matter be taken up after disposal of L.P.A No.1609 of 2019 (State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Manzar Hassan) which was to be decided by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court. The said

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.3019 of 2018 dt.17-04-2025 7/9

¶37

judgment has been decided by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court on 28.06.2024 in case of Kamlanand Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18727 of 2017 with other analogous cases in which, the question was answered whose relevant paragraph is 48 which states as follows:-

¶38

“48. Thus, the questions stand answered as follows:-

¶39

(A.) Rule 157(3)[J] of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, requiring passing of Departmental Accounts Examination for promotion, is not applicable in case of grant of A.C.P. benefits under the A.C.P. Rules, 2003;

¶40

(B.) Rule 157(3)[J] of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 is confined to passing of preliminary examination/final examination in Accounts only for the purposes of confirmation, crossing the efficiency bar and promotion to Selection Grade only and not for regular promotion; (C.) Rule 4(5) of the A.C.P. Rules, 2003 even though provides that the prescribed requirements and mode of sanction of financial progression under the scheme (A.C.P. scheme) shall be the same which are prescribed under the Recruitment/Service Rules for regular promotion against

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.3019 of 2018 dt.17-04-2025 8/9

¶42

vacancies and if the Rules/Resolutions prescribe passing of Departmental Examination or any qualification for promotion, that shall also be an essential condition for sanction of benefit under the scheme will not affect the claim for grant of A.C.P. after completion of twelve/twenty four years of service for the reason that such financial progression under the A.C.P. scheme is only in situ promotion and nothing more. This is even notwithstanding any such requirement of passing any Departmental Examination or acquiring any educational qualification for promotion under the Service/Recruitment/Promotion Rules.”

¶43

It transpires to this Court that on any earlier occasion, the authorities have no opportunity to go through the aforesaid judgment decided by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court and without consideration by the authority of the aforesaid judgment, it shall not be appropriate for this Court to pass any order.

¶44

As such, this writ petition is hereby disposed off granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra (Respondent no.2) and the Respondent no.2 shall decide the petitioner’s

¶45

Patna High Court CWJC No.3019 of 2018 dt.17-04-2025 9/9

¶46

representation afresh within 90 days thereafter in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in case of Kamlanand Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. ( supra ).

¶47

It is made clear this Court has not decided anything on merit, rather, referring this issue to decide completely in accordance with law with the applicability of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act no.10 of 1897) as well as the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in case of Kamlanand Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. ( supra ).

¶48

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23/04/2025 Transmission Date NA

¶49

Divyansh/-

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Letter dated 15.04.2017 contained in Memo No.465 (Annexure-9) rejecting the petitioner's claim on the ground that his father did not fulfil the conditions stipulated in Letter No.3/R-1-10191-Ka-4674 dated 15.05.1992.¶21
Deputy Collector, Establishment, Saran at Chapra (Respondent no.3) · 15.04.2017
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's father was appointed Lower Division Clerk and joined on 10.05.1965 in the office of the Block Development Officer, Siwan; while posted as Assistant under Sonepur prakhand, Saran, he died in harness on 07.10.2000 after more than 35 years of service.¶23
Prior proceeding
As son of the deceased employee, petitioner filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Saran on 22.12.2010 claiming his father had passed the Hindi Notting & Drafting examination and was entitled to 1st time bound promotion w.e.f. 01.04.1981 and 2nd time bound promotion w.e.f. 10.05.1990.¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's earlier writ petition, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20801 of 2012, was dismissed on 26.11.2012 for inordinate delay, with liberty granted to pursue his representation before the concerned authority; no opinion was expressed on merits.¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed further representations before Respondent no.2 (Annexure-4 series) followed by a legal notice; the claim was ultimately rejected by the letter dated 15.04.2017 (Memo No.465, Annexure-9) challenged in this petition.¶26
Prior proceeding
Order no.3 dated 19.09.2023 passed in the present case directed that the matter be taken up after disposal of L.P.A No.1609 of 2019 (State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Manzar Hassan), which was to be decided by the Hon'ble Full Bench.¶35
Prior proceeding
The referenced question was answered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Patna High Court on 28.06.2024 in Kamlanand Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18727 of 2017 (with analogous cases); its paragraph 48 held that departmental examination requirements do not apply to grant of A.C.P. benefits.¶37

Manohar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saket Kumar @ Sanket Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Sundar Ray @ Ramu Vs The State of Bihar

Dilip Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shashi Priya Verma Vs The State of Bihar

Nilkamal Devi Vs Rajesh Upadhyay @ Rajesh Kumar Upadhayay

Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.