IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6970 of 2004 DR. ASHUTOSH RANJAN PRASAD SON OF LATE CHITRANJAN PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR, P.S. NATH NAGAR, P.O. NATH NAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTNAT POULTRY OFFICER (TRAINING), REGIONAL POULTRY FARM, BARARI (BHAGALPUR) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISIONER-CUM-SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (POULTRY) REGIONAL POULTRY FARM, BHAGALPUR. 5. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (PERSONAL CLAIM DETERMINATION CELL) DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Girish Nandan Prasad Singh For the State :- Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, A.C. to AAG IV ----- 4 26/07/2010 By virtue of a policy decision taken by the State of Bihar, specially Department of Finance, grant of non- practicing allowance as a principle was accepted and a notification in this regard came to be issued which is annexure-2 to the writ application. It is the case of the petitioner that he fulfilled all the requirements. He filled up all the forms and declarations and his application was - 2 - forwarded by the Assistant Director, Poultry vide letter No.80 and 82 dated 8.5.2000. One of the forwarding letter is annexure-4 to the writ application. The recommendations were made for payment in favour of two persons, namely, Dr. Indu Mohan Mishra and petitioner Dr. Ashutosh Ranjan Prasad. Dr. Indu Mohan Mishra has been paid the non practicing allowance for the period 1.4.2000 to 28.2.2001 but the petitioner was denied that benefit. Several applications made to the respondents failed to beget suitable response. It is because of this discrimination practiced by the respondents that the petitioner has had to approach the High Court in the present writ application. He wants a direction upon the respondents to pay him non practicing allowance. Learned counsel for the State on the basis of the counter affidavit filed states that the cut off date for making such application was 31.05.2000. Since the claim of the petitioner was not received by the department, authorization in his favour could not be issued. His claim got barred due to delayed application. The department demanded proof of forwarding of his application. He failed to give any evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the - 3 - stand taken in the counter affidavit is far from truth and does not reflect true state of affairs. If the claim applications of two of the employees posted in Bhagalpur under the Assistant Director came to be forwarded by a common letter, how come claim of one was received and processed and the claim of the petitioner was not received, as is being claimed in the counter affidavit. Obviously, there is some mischief which was played by someone for extraneous reasons and the stand taken by the State now has to be tested in the light of the same. It does seem incongruous that the claim of two of the employees were forwarded by a common communication by the Assistant Director, but it is only in the case of the present petitioner that the stand is taken that it was not received well in time. If the recommendations and applications were received in time of Dr. Indu Mohan Mishra then there is a presumption that the claim of the petitioner also reached the respondents well within time but the petitioner’s release of non practicing allowance was not processed. The stand taken by the respondents does not stand to - 4 - reason since the communication was made at the level of the Assistant Director to the Secretary of Animal Husbandry Department which is evident from annexure-4. Obviously the petitioner’s application was there before the Assistant Director to be forwarded along with that of Dr. Indu Mohan Mishra. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to payment of non practicing allowance for the period in question. The defence set up does not seem cogent and reasonable. This writ application is allowed with a direction upon respondent no. 5, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Finance (Personnel Claim Determination Cell) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to process the request of the petitioner for payment of non practicing allowance for the period in question and authorize the same within a period of three months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)