AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 11-08-2026 Heard Mr. Shree Kant Pandey, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, learned Advocate representing the Municipal Corporation, Motihari. The State is also represented through Mr. Md. Irshad, learned Advocate.
The grievance of the petitioner is in limited bound to the extent that despite having rendered services as Driver in the pay scale of Rs.3050-45-3950-4590 with effect from 03.08.2009, till date the petitioner has not been given the arrears of salary on account of his promotion to the said post.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed as Safai Karamchari (Sweeper) on temporary basis vide letter No. 171 dated 06.04.1998 issued by the Special Officer, Municipal Council, Motihari and subsequently on being found the satisfactory work and having experience of driving, he has been promoted on the post of Driver vide order dated 10.08.2009 by the then Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Motihari. To support the aforesaid contention, copy of the service book with the endorsement having been made in this regard as well as the order of promotion issued in favour of the petitioner to the post of Driver as contained in Memo No. 882 dated 03.08.2009, have been placed on record as Annexure-P/2.
Adverting to the aforesaid facts, learned Advocate would thus contend that despite having rendered satisfactory service on the post of Driver for the period aforenoted, he has only been allowed salary for the post of Safai Karamchari and deprived from the salary of Driver, on which post he was promoted.
On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Municipal Corporation fairly submitted that since for redressal of the grievance the petitioner has filed a detailed representation before the Municipal Commissioner, Motihari, who is the competent authority who shall look into the matter and pass final order.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note of the nature of the grievance, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent no. 4, the Municipal Commissioner, Motihari to look into the claim of the petitioner as raised in his representation, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-P/3, and bring to its logical conclusion, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
It is made clear that in case the claim of the petitioner finds favour, necessary payment must be made within a further period of four weeks.
The writ petition stands disposed.