Facts
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, a government employee in the Road Construction Department, filed a writ petition seeking directions for promotion to the post of Head Clerk effective from January 2024
Source reference: p. 1-2Additionally, the petitioner sought the grant of 1st and 2nd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits upon completion of 10 and 20 years of service, citing Finance Department Letter No. 4862 dated 29/04/2025
Source reference: p. 2The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ, asserting that an alternative statutory remedy exists under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for promotion and MACP benefits when a specialized statutory grievance redressal mechanism exists for state employees
Source reference: p. 2-32. Whether the claims for promotion and service benefits fall within the definition of a 'complaint' under the Rules of 2019
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The court primarily applied the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019. Specifically, Rule 2(c) defines a 'complaint' to include matters relating to appointment, promotion, ACP/MACP, salary increments, and retirement benefits
Source reference: p. 3Rule 3 prescribes the procedure for filing such complaints via online mode for both serving and retired personnel
Source reference: p. 3-4The court also adhered to the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court examined the scope of the Rules of 2019 and observed that the petitioner’s grievances—namely promotion to Head Clerk and the grant of MACP benefits—are explicitly covered under the definition of a "complaint" as per Rule 2(c)(4)
Source reference: p. 3The Court reasoned that since the State Government has established a specific forum and procedure (Rule 3) to handle service-related disputes to streamline such grievances, the petitioner must first approach that authority
Source reference: p. 5By directing the petitioner to this forum, the Court ensured that the administrative machinery is utilized before judicial intervention is sought.
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the promotion and MACP claims at this stage and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a formal complaint under the Rules of 2019 within 30 days
The concerned respondent authority was further directed to resolve the matter within the specific timeframe mandated by the Rules of 2019
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
Manoj KumarvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in