Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Harinath PandeyversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court did not entertain the merits but directed the Secretary (Expenditure) to decide the representation, considering the Samiran Bakshi precedent and the Bihar State Litigation Policy, and to issue an order within 90 days.

Summary

The petitioner, Harinath Pandey, filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash a 2022 order of the District Magistrate's Screening Committee that denied him the benefits of the 3rd M.A.C.P. He also requested retrospective grant of the benefits, arrears of salary, and revised retirement benefits. The petitioner relied on the precedent of Samiran Bakshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar (CWJC No.10192 of 2024) and argued that his representation before the Secretary (Expenditure) was pending. The State contended that the representation made no reference to the cited case. The Court, without adjudicating the merits, directed the Secretary (Expenditure) to examine the representation, consider whether the petitioner’s case is covered by the Samiran Bakshi decision and the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, and to pass an order within 90 days, while the petitioner must file a supplementary representation within 30 days. The petition was therefore disposed with specific directions to the respondent authority.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Screening Committee's order denying the petitioner the 3rd M.A.C.P. benefits is liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
  • Whether the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the precedent set in Samiran Bakshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar.
  • Whether the Secretary (Expenditure) must decide the petitioner’s representation in accordance with Clause 4.C of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • certiorari
  • screening committee
  • 3rd M.A.C.P.
  • retrospective benefits
  • Bihar State Litigation Policy
  • administrative law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8667 of 2024
                 ======================================================
                 Harinath Pandey son of Kapildeo Sharma, presently residing at Rajendra
                 Nagar, Dharahara, P.S.- Nagar Thana, Arrah, District- Bhojpur.


                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus

           1.    The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
           2.    The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna.
           3.    The Secretary (Expenditure) , Finance Department, Bihar, Patna.
           4.    The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah.
           5.    The Senior Treasury Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah.
           6.    The District Land Acquisition Officer, Bhojpur.
           7.    The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.


                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr. Lal Mani Sharma, Advocate
                 For the State          :       Mr. Standing Counsel (4)
                 For the A.G., Bihar    :       Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
                                                Ms. Vijeta Kumari, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-02-2026                      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant

                   General, Bihar, Patna.

                                2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

                   following reliefs:-

                                                     (i) For issuance of a writ in the
                                            nature of Certiorari for quashing of the
                                            order contained in Memo no. 46 dated 1-2-
                                            2022 (Anx.- P/2) passed by the Screening
                                            Committee     headed      by        the     District
Patna High Court CWJC No.8667 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2026
                                            2/4




                                  Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah by which the
                                  petitioner has been denied the benefits of the
                                  3rd M. A. C. P.
                                               (ii) For issuance of a writ, order
                                  or direction directing and commanding the
                                  respondents to give/grant the petitioner the
                                  3rd M. A. C. P. with retrospective effect by
                                  counting the service of the petitioner w.e.f.
                                  11-2-1979 after quashing of the aforesaid
                                  order contained in Memo no. 46 dated 1-2-
                                  2022 (Anx.-P/2).
                                               (iii)     For   issuance   of     an
                                  appropriate writ directing and commanding
                                  the respondents to give the petitioner all
                                  consequential benefits including payment of
                                  the arrear of difference of salary after
                                  granting the petitioner the 3rd M. A. C. P.
                                               (iv) For issuance of a writ, order
                                  or direction directing and commanding the
                                  respondents to revise the retirement benefits
                                  of the petitioner and to pay the petitioner the
                                  difference of the amount of the retirement
                                  benefits of the petitioner after granting the
                                  petitioner the 3rd M. A. C. P. with
                                  retrospective effect as well as after revising
                                  the retirement benefits of the petitioner upon
                                  grant of 3rd M. A. C. P. to the petitioner.
                                               (v) For any other relief/reliefs of
                                  which the petitioner is legally entitled to.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8667 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2026
                                            3/4




                      3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the case of Samiran

          Bakshi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., decided on

          11.07.2024 in CWJC No. 10192 of 2024. Counsel further

          submits that the petitioner has filed his representation, which is

          pending      before      the     Secretary     (Expenditure),   Finance

          Department, Bihar, Patna. (respondent No. 3).

                      4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

          submits that in the said representation, there is no mention of the

          case on which the petitioner is relying, namely, Samiran Bakshi

          (Supra).

                      5. In view of the above, this Court, without entering

          into the merits or demerits of the case, directs the Secretary

          (Expenditure), Finance Department, Bihar, Patna (respondent

          No. 3), to decide the petitioner’s representation and, if it is

          found that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the case

          of Samiran Bakshi (supra), as well as after considering Clause

          4.C of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 framed by the

          State Government, he shall take a decision accordingly.

                      6. It is made clear that the petitioner shall file his

          supplementary representation along with the order passed by

          this Court within 30 days from the date of passing of this order,
         Patna High Court CWJC No.8667 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2026
                                                     4/4




                   and the concerned Authority shall pass an order within 90 days

                   from the date of receipt of the supplementary representation.



                                                                  (Dr. Anshuman, J.)


Aman Kumar/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.