IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No 2953 of 2009
Bacha Prasad, son of late Janak Prasad, resident of Mohalla - Kashi
Bazar, P O + P S - Bhagwan Bazar, District - Chapra- Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Bihar
2 Navin Kumar, Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Old Secretariat,
Bihar, Patna -cum- Chairman, Three Members Committee, Bihar
Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, Patna
3 K C Saha, Principal Secretary, Agriculture Production Commissioner,
Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna -cum- Member, Three Members
Committee, Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, Patna
4 Aamir Subhani, Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, Patna -cum- Member of Three Members Committee, Bihar
Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, Patna
5 B Rajendra, Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board
(Repeal) -cum- Director, Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna
- Opposite Parties
-----------
14 12.10.2010 How bureaucracy misleads more than leads the Court is
exemplified by this case.
Petitioner was an employee deputed in the Bihar State
Agricultural Marketing Board. Upon the Board being dissolved by the
Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board Repealing Act, 2006 and by
virtue of Section 6 thereof, petitioner was to continue to receive the same
remunerations which he was receiving at the time of dissolution of the
Board till he was suitably adjusted in any other Department of the
Government. In the present proceedings, the question was with regard to
grievance of the petitioner of being paid much less than what he was
being paid earlier which was contrary to Section 6 of the Repealing Act.
The Director of Agriculture pleaded that petitioner was being paid on
basis of the last pay, as drawn by him in the Marketing Board, but he was
not getting correct information from the Marketing Board. The petitioner
brought on record statement signed by the Administrator of the Marketing
2
Board showing the last pay drawn and petitioner’s entitlements. The two,
that is payment being tendered and payment that was received, were at
variance. The Administrator, Marketing Board and the Director,
Marketing feigning ignorance of each other till petitioner pointed out that
it was one and the same person and not two different officers. He was
Administrator in the capacity of being Director of Agriculture and both
the statements were personally signed by him. When this Court
confronted, lot of time was wasted including the time of learned Advocate
General in trying to justify and rejustify the actions till ultimately, when
confronted with the statement as prepared by the Administrator, the
Advocate General conceded that the Director, Agriculture was wrong.
This has taken almost a year. I will not delve upon the direct allegation as
made by the petitioner against the Director because there is no necessity
as payments have at last been tendered. Four cheques being cheques
dated 15.04.2010, 14.07.2010, 19.07.2010 and 09.10.2010 are handed
over to the counsel for the petitioner in Court. One other cheque,
petitioner’s counsel has refused to accept which is in relation to leave
encashment because petitioner does not accept termination of the
relationship which is subject matter of another writ petition. The
petitioner, subject to verification and reserving his right to challenge the
calculation, accepts the four cheques, as aforesaid.
It may be noticed here that one of the cheques is dated
15.04.2010. Learned counsel for opposite parties assures that he would
get the same revalidated and hand it over to the counsel for the petitioner
even during the Durga Puja Holidays. Accordingly, the cheque dated
3
15.04.2010 is returned upon that undertaking.
As these payments have now been made, this application
stands disposed of.
M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)