Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8485 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ram Shobhit Singh, son of late Jagdish Singh, resident of Momaurya Vihar, Transport Nagar, P.S. Agamkuan, P.O. Nalanda Medical College, District Patna 2. Akshay Kumar Sinha, son of late Basudeo Narayan Lal, resident of MO-Old Jakanapur, P.S. Jakanpur, P.O.G.P.O., District Patna 3. Darbeshwar Prasad Singh, son of late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, resident of MO-Rajeev Nagar, Road No. 7, P.O. Keshri Nagar, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, District Patna 4. Lal Babu, son of late Kuldeep Lal, resident of MO-Emalital, Danapur Cantt., P.O. & P.S. Danaapur,District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, through its Chairman 2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna 4. The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi through its Chairman 5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi 6. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8252 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ram Chandra Roy, son of late Janak Roy, resident of MO- Mahendru Buxaria Tola, P.O.Mahendru, P.S.Sultanganj, District Patna 2. Rabindra Prasad Jha, son of late Tarani Prasad Jha, resident of Village Dariapur, P.S. Nath Nagar, P.O. Dariapur via Nath Nagar, District Bhagalpur 3. Ramayan Sharan Singh, son of late Brij Nandan Singh, resident of Village Rasalpur, Post Office Oriawan, Police Station Ekangar Sarai, District Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.8485 of 2011 (6) dt.31-01-2013 2 / 5 Versus 1. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, through its Chairman 2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna 4 The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi through its Chairman 5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi 6. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance : (In CWJC No.8485 of 2011)
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent 1 to 3 : Mr. Ajay Bihar Sinha, Advocate Ms. Seems Gazela, Advocate For the Respondents 4 to 6 Mr.Md. Kamal Uddin, Advocate Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate (In CWJC No.8252 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate Mr. Ram Kumar Singh,Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Advocate For the Respondents 4 to 6 : Mr. Md. Kamal Uddin, Advocate Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 31-01-2013 With the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions have been heard together, as the issues of facts and law are similar and identical in both the matters. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.8485 of 2011 (6) dt.31-01-2013 3 / 5 respondents 1 to 3, as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 to 6 in both the matters. 3. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of directions upon the respondents for granting them benefits of Assured Career Progression ( in short ‘A.C.P.’) Scheme with effect from 9.8.1999. 4. It is admitted case of the parties that originally all the petitioners in both the writ petitions were employees of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and their services continued under the respondent Bihar School Examination Board till 31.3.2001. However, their services were allotted to the State of Jharkhand under the provisions of The Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 with effect from 1.4.2001, whereafter, they all were posted and working under the respondent Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. Now, all the petitioners have superannuated from service on different dates. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that though in view of office order contained in Memo No. 2176 dated 1.12.2008 issued by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna as contained in Annexure-3, the respondent Bihar School Examination Board, Patna is obliged to grant them benefits of A.C.P. for the period from 9.8.1999 to 31.3.2001, yet despite their representation they are being denied the aforesaid benefits. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that since decisions are not being taken by the respondent Bihar School examination Board, Patna, regarding granting of benefits of A.C.P. to the petitioners, therefore, similar benefits admissible to them are not being provided by the respondent Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.8485 of 2011 (6) dt.31-01-2013 4 / 5 and its functionaries. 6. Separate counter affidavits on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 as also respondents 4 to 6 have been filed in both the cases. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, though attempts have been made to resist the claims made on behalf of the petitioners on different grounds, but the admissibility of grant of A.C.P. benefits to the petitioners has not been denied. 7. After having heard the parties, and in view of nature of claims raised on behalf of the petitioners, as also in view of the stand taken by the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that each of the petitioners in both the cases should file their separate representations before respondent no.3 as also respondent no. 6 raising all the grievances, which have been raised in these proceedings. The representations must be filed by each of the petitioners separately within a maximum period of one month from today before the respondent no.3 and the respondent no. 6 separately. 8. If such representations are filed by the petitioners separately within the time prescribed, then the respondents 3 and 6 shall be obliged to consider and decide the claims of each of the petitioners separately by a speaking order. If on consideration of the materials the respondents 3 and 6 come to their conclusions that claims raised on behalf of the petitioners are admissible to them, then they shall further be obliged to issue consequential orders for granting them the admissible benefits under A.C.P. scheme. Entire exercise must be completed by the respondents within a maximum period of three months from the date of filing of the separate representations by each of the 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.8485 of 2011 (6) dt.31-01-2013 5 / 5 petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observations and
Decision
directions, both the writ petitions stand finally disposed of. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)