IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 2953 of 2009 Bacha Prasad, son of late Janak Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Kashi Bazar, P O + P S – Bhagwan Bazar, District – Chapra- Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 Navin Kumar, Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna –cum- Chairman, Three Members Committee, Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, Patna 3 K C Saha, Principal Secretary, Agriculture Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna –cum- Member, Three Members Committee, Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, Patna 4 Aamir Subhani, Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Patna –cum- Member of Three Members Committee, Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, Patna 5 B Rajendra, Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (Repeal) –cum- Director, Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna - Opposite Parties ----------- 14 12.10.2010 How bureaucracy misleads more than leads the Court is exemplified by this case. Petitioner was an employee deputed in the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board. Upon the Board being dissolved by the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board Repealing Act, 2006 and by virtue of Section 6 thereof, petitioner was to continue to receive the same remunerations which he was receiving at the time of dissolution of the Board till he was suitably adjusted in any other Department of the Government. In the present proceedings, the question was with regard to grievance of the petitioner of being paid much less than what he was being paid earlier which was contrary to Section 6 of the Repealing Act. The Director of Agriculture pleaded that petitioner was being paid on basis of the last pay, as drawn by him in the Marketing Board, but he was not getting correct information from the Marketing Board. The petitioner brought on record statement signed by the Administrator of the Marketing 2 Board showing the last pay drawn and petitioner’s entitlements. The two, that is payment being tendered and payment that was received, were at variance. The Administrator, Marketing Board and the Director, Marketing feigning ignorance of each other till petitioner pointed out that it was one and the same person and not two different officers. He was Administrator in the capacity of being Director of Agriculture and both the statements were personally signed by him. When this Court confronted, lot of time was wasted including the time of learned Advocate General in trying to justify and rejustify the actions till ultimately, when confronted with the statement as prepared by the Administrator, the Advocate General conceded that the Director, Agriculture was wrong. This has taken almost a year. I will not delve upon the direct allegation as made by the petitioner against the Director because there is no necessity as payments have at last been tendered. Four cheques being cheques dated 15.04.2010, 14.07.2010, 19.07.2010 and 09.10.2010 are handed over to the counsel for the petitioner in Court. One other cheque, petitioner’s counsel has refused to accept which is in relation to leave encashment because petitioner does not accept termination of the relationship which is subject matter of another writ petition. The petitioner, subject to verification and reserving his right to challenge the calculation, accepts the four cheques, as aforesaid. It may be noticed here that one of the cheques is dated 15.04.2010. Learned counsel for opposite parties assures that he would get the same revalidated and hand it over to the counsel for the petitioner even during the Durga Puja Holidays. Accordingly, the cheque dated 3 15.04.2010 is returned upon that undertaking. As these payments have now been made, this application stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)