Shiv Dayal Prasad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard Mr. Ram Hriday Prasad, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Deep Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.

The grievance of the petitioner lies within a narrow compass to the extent that while extending the benefit of 1^st A.C.P. and 2^nd M.A.C.P. under letter dated 21.04.2023 (Annexure-P/6), the petitioner has not been allowed proper pay scale.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner specifically contended that having been deprived from the rightful claim of the benefit of 1^st A.C.P. and 2^nd M.A.C.P., the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 7538 of 2022, which came to be disposed of on 19.12.2023 with a direction to file an appropriate application before the Bihar Panchayati Raj Officer, Arwal. However, despite the order of this Court, when no benefit was extended even on the repreated representations, the petitioner compelled to file M.J.C. No. 3235 of 2024. In the meanwhile, the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Arwal passed the order extending the benefit of 1^st A.C.P. w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and 2^nd M.A.C.P. w.e.f. 01.01.2009 along with 3^rd M.A.C.P. w.e.f. 24.08.2015. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that while extending the benefit of 1^st A.C.P. and 2^nd M.A.C.P., he has been deprived of the appropriate pay scale. A detailed representation has been filed by the petitioner with categorical explanation informing the concerned authorities as to how he has been deprived of the appropriate pay scale. The representation was filed on 17.12.2025, however, till date no decision has been taken over the same. In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner has approached this Court.

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submitted that an adjournment is required to apprise this Court with regard to present position as well as entitlement of the petitioner.

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the nature of the grievance, as also the fact that the petitioner has filed a detailed representation bringing on record the entire facts, the copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-P/7, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent District Panchayati Raj Officer, Arwal to take up the representation of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-P/7, and bring to its logical conclusion by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of ten weeks’ from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

It is made clear that if the claim of the petitioner finds favour, necessary correction must be done within the period stipulated.

The writ petition stands disposed of.