IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.16665 of 2011
Murari Prasad S/O Late Suraj Prasad R/O Bank Colony, Gola Road,
Lane No.-5, Danapur, District-Patna
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna
2. The Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Vikas Bhawan,
Patna
3. The Director (Youth-Welfare) Cum Deputy Secretary, Art, Culture
and Youth Department, Vikas Bhawan, Patna
4. The District Education Officer, Patna
5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna
-----------
02. 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
Petitioner is a retired employee who was initially
engaged as a National Discipline Scheme Instructor (hereinafter
to be referred to as ‘N.D.S.I.’) on 17.9.1963. Subsequently on
transfer he came to the State of Bihar. His service was absorbed
in the cadre of Physical Education Teacher on 1.9.1973.
There were many rounds of litigation of similarly
situated persons on many issues and enactment based on which
the Department of Art, Culture and Youth Welfare, Patna, issued
Notification dated 2.12.2009 which is Annexure-1 to the writ
application. The said notification itself will indicate about
directions given therein which form the basis of background for
issuance of Annexure-1.
From perusal of Annexure-1 and from the list of the
names of such persons it appears that name of the petitioner
appeared at serial No.39. Notification indicates the revised pay
2
scale which came to be given to the petitioner by virtue of time
bound promotion.
But this notification has remained only on paper as
money has not accrued to the petitioner so far. The petitioner
has approached the Director of the Department concerned, i.e.
Art, Culture and Youth Department, respondent no.3 raising his
grievance as would be evident from perusal of Annexures 3 and
4.
Since it seems to be a case of inaction on the part of
the respondents and since the claim of the petitioner is based on
the notification issued by the respondent in Annexure-1, the
Court fails to understand the impediment which has been
created.
The writ application is disposed of with a direction
upon respondent no.3 that taking cognizance of their
notifications contained in Annexures 1 and 2 coupled with the
demand of the petitioner based on the two notifications, his
claim would be settled within a period of three months from the
date of production of a copy of this order.
rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)