Writ Petition Disposed With Liberty to Exhaust Statutory Appeal Remedy Under Service Grievance Redressal Rules

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer appointed in 1997 and later promoted to Executive Engineer in 2011, superannuated on January 31, 2025.

He filed the writ petition challenging an order dated November 25, 2025, passed by the Service Grievance Redressal Officer (Respondent No. 7), which denied him the benefits of the second Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) and promotion to Superintending Engineer.

The department justified the denial on the grounds that the petitioner was under suspension during his eligibility period and faced a criminal case (Economic Offence Unit P.S. Case No. 39/2013) where a charge sheet had been filed and prosecution sanctioned.

The petitioner alleged that juniors were granted these benefits while he was excluded arbitrarily.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.

2. Whether the court should direct the Appellate Authority to consider the petitioner’s claim for MACP and promotion benefits.

The Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, specifically Rule 8, which provides for a statutory appeal by an aggrieved person before the Appellate Authority within 30 days of an order passed by the Grievance Redressal Officer.

The principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Upon the State raising a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy, the court noted that the petitioner had approached the High Court directly against the order of the Service Grievance Redressal Officer.

The petitioner’s counsel conceded that the writ was preferred due to "inadvertent advice" and sought liberty to approach the proper forum.

The court did not delve into the merits of the criminal proceedings or the MACP eligibility but focused on the procedural lapse of bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism provided under the Rules of 2019.

The Court directed that any delay in filing the appeal be condoned and ordered the Appellate Authority to pass a decision on the grievance within 90 days from the date of production of the court order.