Dismissed¶29

Saurabh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC20 Mar 2025CWJC/4253/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MACP denial; MACP Rules 2010; Departmental Accounts Examination not passed; District Screening Committee Patna meeting dated 18.01.2025; Memo no-1 dated 18.01.2025; Annexure-P/1 pages not in continuation; interpolation objection; petitioner no explanation; writ petition dismissed without deciding merits; first MACP from June 2012; second MACP after 20 years; arrears of salary; CWJC No.4253 of 2025; Patna High Court; Dr. Anshuman, J; order dated 20-03-2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed. ¶29

Saurabh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4253 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Saurabh Kumar Singh Son of Late Uma Shankar Sinha Resident of Village - Hariharpur, P.S- Gautam Budh Nagar, Tarwara, District- Siwan, presently residing at Srilekha Enclave, Flat No.2, Road No. 1, Shivpuri, Boring Road Patna, P.S-Shastri Nagar, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna.

¶7

District Magistrate, Patna. 3. Deputy Collector/Establishment, Collectorate of Patna.

¶8

Circle Officer, Department of Revenue of Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Circle office, Phulwarisharif, Patna.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Braj Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4 ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 20-03-2025

¶14

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned

¶15

Counsel for the State.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:-

¶17

“(i) To set aside the decision taken by the District Screening Committee in its meeting dated 18.01.2025 convened under the chairmanship of respondent District Magistrate, Patna and Communicated vide Memo no-1 dated 18.01.2025, issued under the signature of

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.4253 of 2025(2) dt.20-03-2025

¶19

2/3

¶20

respondent Deputy CollectorEstablishment, Patna, whereby the benefit of MACP in terms with MACP Rules 2010 has been denied to the petitioner on the ground of not having passed the Departmental Accounts Examination.

¶21

(ii) Further prayer in the present writ application is to grant first MACP to the petitioner with effect from June 2012, when the petitioner having completed 10 years of qualifying service, became eligible for grant of first MACP in terms with MACP Rules 2010.

¶22

(iii) The petitioner further prays for granting him the benefit of 2nd MACP from due date when he completed Twenty Years (20 years) of qualifying service.

¶23

(iv) For a further direction to the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary after allowing him the monetary benefit on grant of such 1st and 2nd MACP to the petitioner with effect from June 2012, in terms of MACP Rules 2010, taking into account that as conclusively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the full bench of this Hon'ble Court,

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.4253 of 2025(2) dt.20-03-2025 3/3

¶25

passing of departmental accounts examination is not an essential requirement for the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP to the otherwise eligible employees like the petitioner.”

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the District Screening Committee, Patna, has been challenged before this Court which is Annexure-P/1.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the State raised preliminary objection and submits that from Annexure-P/1 of the writ petition it transpires that all pages are not in continuation. Internal page of the alleged Memo is page-7, page-14, page-26, page-27 and then final page is page-15. Counsel for the State submits that there is some interpolation in the said letter.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has no explanation for the same.

¶29

As such, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶30

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶31

Mkr./-

¶32

Saurabh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Kumar Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Anita Devi Vs the State of Bihar

Nakul Koda @ Lalu Koda Vs The State of Bihar

Yogendra Kumar Lal Vs State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Gond Vs The State of Bihar

Ashish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar