Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 992 (PAT)

Md. Samsul Haque @ Shamsul Haque v. State Of Bihar

2003-09-10

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in Annexure 1 dated 25.8.1998. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this Court while disposing of the writ application of the petitioner and one Jagavindra Narain Singh in C.W.J.C. No. 1872 of 1996 directed the respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 4. The respondents now have disposed of the claims of the petitioner and the aforesaid Jagavindra Narain Singh vide Annexure 1 giving them the promotional avenues with effect from 22.7.1987. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that one Jagat Narayan Chaturvedi, similarly situated to the petitioner, approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13245 of 1993, which was disposed of on 30.6.1995 and this Court directed to pay the difference of salary for the period 22.2.1970 to 31.12.1982 in the pay scale of Rs. 610-1155 along with other consequential emoluments and also to fix his pension, accordingly. But the authorities without considering the order passed by this Court, as contained in Annexure 7, has denied the claim of the petitioner, which has been made, available to Dr. Jagat Narain Chaturvedi aforesaid. 6. Per se, it appears from Annexure 1 that the authorities have not taken into consideration the order passed by this Court, as contained in Annexure 7. The order passed by this Court, as contained in Annexure 7, has some bearing on the merit of this case and the authorities were required to look into the same and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed, order impugned, as contained in Annexure 1, so far the petitioner is concerned, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to re-examine the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of the order passed by this Court, as contained in Annexure 7 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.