Back
P. B. BAJANTHRI
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Head learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief/reliefs:
"This is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding the respondents authorities to pay the arrears of salary in a regular pay scale with D.A. w.e.f. in view of the decision of Board of the Director 's of the Bank dated 8.7.2015, since the Board of the Bank have decided that the services of the petitioner as Data Entry Operator in the Bank was regularized in its meeting dated 8.7.2015 under Agenda No. 14 (Kha). An order with this regard was issued on 8.8.2015 by the Respondent Managing Director but it seems that date of regularization as mentioned 8.8.2015 is wrongly typed and indicated as 28.11.2006. "
3. The petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on 28.12.2006. He was given temporary status and honorarium of Rs. 6,000/- was assigned on 16.12.2009, thereafter, from time to time the honorarium was extended. The last extension was on 24.06.2014 from Rs. 8,000/-to Rs. 10,000/- per month. Thereafter, on 08.07.2015 Board had decided to regularize
Point of Law : It is equally well settled that Courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjus....
The court emphasizes the duty of authorities to consider representations based on prior resolutions for service regularization.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
