The main legal point established in the judgment is that no writ of Mandamus can be issued to the legislature to enact a particular legislation, nor can such direction be issued to the executive which exercises the powers to make rules in the nature of subordinate legislation.

JUDGMENT :

We are utterly dismayed over the cavalier way this writ application has been drafted, and despite this Court’s observation at the very commencement of hearing the case in the wake of the nature of relief sought for in the present writ application, the matter has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner.

This writ application has been filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to frame rules/policy for the employees of the Gram Panchayats in view of Article 243H of the Constitution of India and in the light of a 'judgment' delivered by this Court on 11.12.2013 passed in CWJC No. 3689 of 2012 (Rajendra Prasad Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.). At the very outset, this Court pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjit Kumar that this Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus requiring the State Government to frame statutory rules or amend statutory rules in view of the law clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard.

2. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel, disregarding such clear observation made by this Court took us to the said order of this Court dated 11.02.2013 passed in CWJC No. 3689 of 2012 and other analogous matters with reference to Article 234H of Constitution of India. Unfortunately, the said order of this Court dated 11.12.2013 has been described in the writ petition as this Court’s Judgment, which it is not.

3. It is noteworthy that the said order of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Choudhary (supra) is apparently an interim order. There is no disclosure in the writ petition as to what was the final outcome of the proceedings arising out of the said proceeding. Only upon an enquiry made by this Court, it has emerged that the said batch of writ applications has been disposed of by an order dated 19.06.2013 with the following direction and observation:-

“I find that the Zila Parishad has taken a decision to gear up the payment of legal dues of the petitioners including post retirement benefits and has made payments as well. Thus, the writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. No.3689 of 2012 and C.W.J.C. No. 1297 of 2013 are disposed of in terms of the observations noted above.

The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 15079 of 2004 retired on 31.10.2002 from Zila Parishad, Samastipur whereas the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.4487 of 2005 retired on 1.7.2001 from Zila Parishad, Saharsa.

Learned counsel for the Zila Parishad submits that most of the retrial dues of these petitioners have been paid and as soon as the fund is available, the retrial dues of the petitioners would be paid forthwith.

The petitioners of these writ applications have retired long back in the year 2001 and 2002, I direct the respondent Zila Parishad to clear the retrial dues of the petitioners on priority basis within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.4883 of 2008 retired from Zila Parishad, Darbhanga. Counsel for the Zila Parishad submits that the petitioner has been paid most of his retrial dues. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been paid 60% of his retrial dues. The respondent State Government should release the necessary funds for payment of balance amount of retrial dues to the petitioner forthwith.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, all these writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. No. 15079 of 2004, C.W.J.C. No.4487 of 2005 and

C.W.J.C. No.4883 of 2008 are thus disposed of.”

4. The petitioners, as is evident from paragraph 1 of the writ petition are seeking direction to make exhaustive provisions regarding service conditions, payment of salary, promotion and post-retiral dues. In paragraphs 4 and 16 of the writ application, it has been vaguely stated that the petitioners are employees of different Municipal Corporations in the State of Bihar. Surprisingly, in paragraph 16 of the writ application, it has been stated that the petitioners are being