Facts
The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Registry Office, Aurangabad, filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents (specifically Respondent No. 5) to grant him the benefits of the first ACP/MACP with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/- effective from July 1, 2014
Source reference: p. 1-2He further sought the payment of consequential arrears with interest, asserting parity with similarly situated LDCs in the State
Source reference: p. 2During the hearing, the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing the existence of an alternative statutory remedy for grievance redressal
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for service benefits (ACP/MACP) must first be adjudicated under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the writ petition can be entertained directly despite the availability of an alternative administrative remedy
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
The Court applied the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019. Specifically, Rule 2(c) defines a "Complaint" to include all matters relating to service benefits such as appointments, salary increments, and Promotions/ACP/MACP
Source reference: p. 3Rule 3 prescribes the mandatory procedure for filing such complaints online by serving or retired employees
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court analyzed the definition of "Complaint" under Rule 2(c) of the 2019 Rules and noted that the petitioner’s specific relief—the grant of ACP/MACP—falls squarely within the ambit of the grievance redressal mechanism established by the State
Source reference: para 4The Court observed that the Rules of 2019 were specifically framed by the General Administration Department to handle such service-related disputes
Source reference: para 3Consequently, rather than adjudicating the merits of the grade pay claim, the Court found it appropriate to redirect the petitioner to the statutory authority, as the rules provide a time-bound and formal procedure for such resolutions
Source reference: para 5Holding
The Court did not rule on the merits of the ACP/MACP claim but disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to avail himself of the alternative remedy under the 2019 Rules
The petitioner was granted 30 days to file a formal complaint before the concerned authority, and the authority was directed to decide the matter strictly within the timeframe specified in the Rules of 2019
Source reference: para 5Original Court PDF
MazharAlam @ Md. MazharAlamvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in