Patna High Court CWJC No.3834 of 2005 (6) dt.16-11-2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3834 of 2005 ====================================================== Nithuri Prasad , s/o- Late Hardeo, r/o- Mohala village Balkur, P.S.- Gagaha, P.O.- Balkur, District- Gorakhpur (Uttar Pradesh). .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Patna Municipal Corporation, through the Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budha Marg, Patna. 2. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budha Marg, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramendra Prasad Mr. Satyendra Kr.Bhatnagar For the Respondent/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 6 16-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondent Patna Municipal Corporation (for short “ the Corporation”). In spite of several indulgence(s) granted by this Court, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he was regularized on Class IV post of the Corporation by office order No. 436 dated 4.7.1984 (Annexure-1) but subsequently by yet another office order dated 8.5.1987, he was directed to discharge duties of the Typist which is a Class-III post. It is the case of the petitioner that he is still continuing to discharge the duties of the Patna High Court CWJC No.3834 of 2005 (6) dt.16-11-2011 2 said post but till date he has not been paid any salary/allowance therefor. It is contended that another employee similarly placed approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3849 of 2001 seeking his promotion/regularization on Class-III post which was declined but the respondent was directed to consider the case of the petitioner and other similar situated persons in accordance with law. Learned counsel relying on an order dated 11.8.2004 (Annexure-4) submits that while considering claim of aforesaid employee namely Shiv Bachan Prasad Yadav, the authorities found that in view of the fact that he was made to discharge the duties of higher post, aforesaid employee was entitled to be paid in the minimum/basic scale of pay admissible to the said post. Learned counsel submits that in the light of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent Corporation in case of one of the similarly placed employees, the petitioner is also entitled to be considered for grant of basic/minimum scale of pay admissible to the post on which he has been made to discharge the duties under the orders of the Corporation. As I have noticed, there is no counter affidavit. Further, it appears that the relevant pleadings supported by document/record are not on record. This Court is, thus, satisfied that the present application be disposed of by the following order: Patna High Court CWJC No.3834 of 2005 (6) dt.16-11-2011 3 Let the petitioner file a detail representation setting out his grievance in the light of order dated 11.8.2004 (Annexure-4) within four weeks along with a copy of the present order before the Municipal Commissioner whereafter the said respondent shall consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order preferably within six weeks of its filing. Needless to observe that if the authority finds that the case of the petitioner stands on the similar/identical footing as that of the beneficiary of order dated 11.8.2004(Annexure-4), obviously he would also be entitled to the same benefit. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)