SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Pat) 653

HARISH KUMAR
Satendra Kumar Srivastva – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, Sushil Kumar Jha.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rewti Kant Raman.

Harish Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha and Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, learned AC to SC 11 for the State.

2. By filing the present writ application the petitioner is assailing the office order as contained in Memo No. 927 dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure 1 to the writ application), whereby, it has been ordered that since the petitioner has failed to pass Departmental Accounts Examination, no benefits under the ACP/MACP scheme would be applicable to him and further direction has been given for recovery of excess amount already paid to the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks a direction upon the respondents to grant the pension and gratuity on the revised pay scale, after granting the benefit under the ACP/MACP scheme.

3. The short facts of the case which led to the filing of the present application is, that the petitioner was initially appointed on compassionate ground vide memo no. 584 dated 15.01.1988, in the pay scale of Rs.580-860/-. The petitioner passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and after serving so many places, he was sent to the office of the respondent, Executive Engineer, Ara. It is next co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top