Relief regarding service benefits must be sought through statutory grievance redressal mechanisms before approaching High Court.

The eight petitioners, formerly employed as Personal Assistants, challenged a Departmental Screening Committee decision dated 23.11.2018 which rejected their claims for the 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (M.A.C.P.) upon completion of 30 years of service

The petitioners contended their claims were rejected on unreasonable grounds despite submitted representations to the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, in 2018 and subsequent years

While the State filed a counter-affidavit reaffirming the committee's decision, no formal disposal of the petitioners' administrative representations had occurred

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the grant of 3rd M.A.C.P. benefits and consequential arrears from the date of completion of 30 years of service

2. Whether the petitioners must exhaust alternative statutory remedies provided under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, before seeking writ jurisdiction

Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019: Specifically, Rule 2(c) defines a "complaint" to include all matters relating to service benefits, specifically naming "A.C.P., M.A.C.P. related" issues

Rule 3 prescribes the mandatory procedure for filing such complaints online by serving or retired employees

The principle of "exhaustion of alternative remedies" was central, as the Court directed the parties to adhere to the specialized grievance redressal mechanism framed by the State

The Court observed that the cause of action originated in 2018 and that the State of Bihar has since established a specific statutory framework (the 2019 Rules) to handle disputes regarding service benefits like M.A.C.P.

Although the petitioners moved the High Court under Article 226, the Court reasoned that since the Rules of 2019 provide a defined forum and procedure for "complaints" regarding promotions and salary increments, the petitioners should first avail themselves of this remedy

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the Screening Committee's decision but rather focused on the procedural necessity of utilizing the prescribed administrative grievance system before seeking judicial intervention

It directed the petitioners to file a formal complaint under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, within 30 days, and the concerned authority was further directed to pass a speaking order on the petitioners' claims within the timeframe specified in the 2019 Rules