Facts
The thirty-two petitioners, comprising serving and retired employees, moved the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for the grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2They had previously submitted a representation to the Education Department on February 10, 2025, which remained pending
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ, contending that the dispute is squarely covered under the statutory grievance mechanism provided by the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Issues
1. Whether a grievance relating to the grant of ACP/MACP falls within the definition of a "complaint" under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019
Source reference: p. 3, para. 62. Whether the petitioners must exhaust the alternative statutory remedy provided under the 2019 Rules before approaching the High Court under Article 226
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Law Applied
The Court primarily applied the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.
Source reference: no citationUnder Rule 2(c), the term 'Complaint' is broadly defined to include all matters relating to service and service benefits, specifically listing promotion, ACP, and MACP as covered subjects
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6Rule 3 prescribes the mandatory procedure for filing such complaints online by serving or retired employees, or their dependents in the event of death
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6Reasoning
The Court examined the scope of Rule 2(c) of the 2019 Rules and found that the petitioners’ claim for ACP/MACP benefits is explicitly categorized as a "complaint" triable under the statutory system
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 6It noted that the Rules provide a comprehensive mechanism for both serving and retired personnel to seek redressal for service-linked financial benefits
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6By interpreting the procedure laid down in Rule 3, the Court reasoned that since a specific, efficacious, and no-fee electronic remedy exists for the subjects raised in the petition, the petitioners ought to utilize that forum first
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 7The Court emphasized that once such a complaint is filed, the authority is legally bound to pass orders within a stipulated timeframe
Source reference: p. 5, para. 7Holding
The High Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the claim at this stage and disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to the alternative forum
The Court granted the petitioners liberty to file a formal complaint under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, within 30 days
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 7The Court further directed the concerned authority to pass an order within the timeframe specified in the Rules after affording the petitioners an opportunity for a hearing
Source reference: p. 5, para. 7-8Original Court PDF
Braj Kishore Narayan SinghvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in