IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1167 of 2007
======================================================
Shyam Narayan Pandit, s/o- Late Basudeo Pandit, r/o- mohalla Munachak,
Kankarbagh Road, Patna-20
At present posted as Assistant in the Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh
Marg, Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Commissioner, Patna Municipal
Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna.
2. The Accounts Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg,
Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. None
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Binita Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR
MANDAL
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL)
5 09-11-2011 No body appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mrs. Binita
Singh on behalf of Patna Municipal Corporation (for short ” the
Corporation”) is present.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
Corporation.
Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a
direction upon the respondent Corporation to pay him the scale of
pay admissible to the post of Assistant. Admittedly, petitioner was
initially engaged as Mali on daily wage basis. He was, however,
permitted to discharge duties of Routine Clerk. Petitioner earlier
approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11776 of 2000 raising
Patna High Court CWJC No.1167 of 2007 (5) dt.09-11-2011
2
identical grievance. This Court by order dated 22.11.2000
disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to file
representation which was to be considered and disposed of by the
authorities of the Corporation by a reasoned order. Accordingly,
the petitioner made representation which was considered and the
claim was rejected by order dated 25.7.2003 and duly
communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1134 dated
31.7.2003 (Annexure-A). Relevant facts in this regard have been
stated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit. It also appears from
perusal of the counter affidavit that the minimum of the basic pay
of the post of Routine Clerk for the period the petitioner actually
discharged the duty has been paid. The said order (Annexure-A) is
not under challenge.
This Court on consideration of pleadings on record and
after hearing learned counsel for the respondent Corporation finds
no merit in the application.
It is accordingly dismissed.
(Kishore K. Mandal, J)
PANKAJ KUMAR/-