Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court did not decide the substantive claims but ordered the respondent to decide the petitioner’s representation within 90 days and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
Petitioner Ranjeet Kumar Singh, a government employee, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar to grant him ACP and MACP benefits, promotion, salary revision, and to quash certain office orders, relying on various letters, memos, and a prior Full Bench judgment. He also submitted a representation (Annexure P/7) for these reliefs. The State responded that the grievance was settled but admitted no specific decision had been taken on the representation. The Court, without addressing the merits, dismissed the pending Interlocutory Application as not pressed and directed the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Creation, to decide the petitioner’s representation within 90 days. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of, with the status quo maintained pending final resolution of the representation.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to ACP and MACP benefits and promotion without passing the departmental examination.
- Whether the office orders dated 18.12.2023, 19.12.2023, and 11.09.2023 can be quashed.
- Whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate to compel the State to grant the claimed benefits.
- Whether the State’s representation (Annexure P/7) must be decided before the petition can be disposed.
Subjects
- mandamus
- ACP
- MACP
- promotion
- departmental examination
- representation
- water resources department
- civil service benefits
- writ petition
- status quo
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14444 of 2024
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar Singh S/o Late Birendra Prasad Singh R/o Village and Post-
Birpur (Sat Ghar), P.S.- Jurawanpur, Dist- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resource
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Engineer-in-Chief Irrigation Creation, Water Resource Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Creation, (Sinchai Srijan), Water Resource
Department, Darbhanga.
6. The Superintending Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Circle, Madhubani.
7. The Executive Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Division, Rajnagar,
Madhubani.
8. The Executive Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Division, Benipatti,
Madhubani.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
5 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
Re: IA No. 01 of 2024
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
during the pendency of the writ petition, the grievance raised in
I.A. No. 01 of 2024 no longer survives. Therefore, he seeks
permission to not press I.A. No. 01 of 2024.
3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection for
the same.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14444 of 2024(5) dt.17-02-2026
2/4
4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands dismissed
as not pressed.
Re: CWJC No. 14444 of 2024
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by
virtue of filing the present writ petition, a prayer has been made
for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
grant the benefit of ACP and MACP to the petitioner in light of
Letter No. 5152 dated 21.05.2013 issued by the Finance
Department, Government of Bihar, Letter No. 163 dated
08.01.2016, as well as Memo No. 2162 dated 28.02.2024. A
further prayer has been made for revision of salary.
6. It has also been prayed that the petitioner be
granted financial benefits, including promotion, even without
passing the Departmental Examination, in light of the order
dated 28.06.2024 passed in CWJC No. 18727 of 2017
(Kamlanand Thakur vs. The State of Bihar & Others),
rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench.
7. The relief of certiorari has also been sought for
setting aside/quashing Office Order No. 3323 dated 18.12.2023,
Letter No. 3325 dated 19.12.2023, and Memo No. 2357 dated
11.09.2023 issued by the Office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Creation, Water Resources Department, Darbhanga.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14444 of 2024(5) dt.17-02-2026
3/4
8. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner
has filed a representation for grant of the aforesaid relief, which
has been brought on record as Annexure P/7 dated 23.12.2023.
He further submits that the petitioner’s grievance is squarely
covered in light of the various decisions referred to in the said
representation.
9. Upon a specific query put by this Court to the
respondent-State as to whether any decision has been taken on
the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/7), learned
counsel for the State, in response, submits that a letter has been
annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure R-1/V, being Letter
No. 439 dated 19.05.2025, which, according to him, is self-
sufficient and reflects that the grievance of the petitioner stands
settled. However, he fairly submits that no specific decision has
been taken by the respondent on Annexure P/7.
10. In view of the above, this Court, without entering
into the merits or demerits of the case, directs the Chief
Engineer, Irrigation Creation (Sinchai Srijan), Water Resources
Department, Darbhanga (Respondent No. 5), to take a decision
on the petitioner’s representation (Annexure P/7) within a
period of 90 days from the date of production/receipt of a copy
of this order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14444 of 2024(5) dt.17-02-2026
4/4
11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed off.
12. It is made clear that the petitioner has also
challenged certain letters. The status quo, as existing today with
respect to the said letters, shall be maintained till final disposal
of the representation. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to
supplement his pleadings, if so advised.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…