PATNA, India, Aug. 4 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 15:

Heard learned Senior 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 relief/s:-

"I. For commanding the respondent authorities to consider the case of the husband of the petitioner for a second time bound promotion after completion of twenty five years of service as many persons appointed along with the husband of the petitioner have been granted the second time bound promotion with effect from due date.

II. For direction upon the respondent authorities to pay all the consequential benefit along with suitable interest after extending the benefit of the second time bound promotion payable to the husband of the petitioner.

III. For quashing of the order contained in Memo no. 1754 dated 4.6.2007 issued under the signature of Director, Agriculture, Government of Bihar, by which the claim of the petitioner for second time bound promotion has been rejected without application of mind.

IV. Any other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner."

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Industrial Extension Supervisor in the year 1957 under the Industries Department. Senior counsel submits that in the year 1964, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as fresh on the post of Inspector, Weights and Measure. In the year 1972, the husband of the petitioner was promoted to the post of Market Secretary B and with the formation of the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as "Board"), the service of the husband of the petitioner has been placed under the disposal of the Board on deputation basis. Senior counsel submits that on 31.01.1992, the husband of the petitioner superannuated on the post of Market Secretary B and that there was discrepancy in the pay scale of Market Secretary A, Market Secretary B and Market Secretary of the Marketing Board. Senior counsel submits that all 3 types of the Market Secretary of the Marketing Board were getting different types of pay scale. And it is due to this reason, the similarly situated employees have moved before this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.6261 of 1985 which was disposed off vide order dated 05.12.1994 with a direction to the respondent authorities to pay identical pay scale to all the Market Secretaries working in the Board w.e.f 20.12.1985. Thereafter, the matter traveled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and the S.L.P preferred by the Board as well as by the State was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2003.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTEyOTQjMjAxNiMxI04=-kI5xEsi86e4=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.