CIVIL APPEAL 1313 of 2012 on 1 March 1989

1. Narendra Kumar Pathak, son of late Kailash Pathak, resident of Qr. No. 8, Transport Colony, Near Patel Chowk, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi. No. 8, Transport Colony, Near Patel Chowk, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi.

2. Umesh Kumar, son of late Baccha Kumar Singh, resident of Kadru, P.O. Kadru, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi. Kadru, P.O. Kadru, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.

3. Lalan Prasad Singh, son of late Triveni Prasad Singh, resident of Qr. No. 4, Transport Colony, Near Patel Chowk, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi. Qr. No. 4, Transport Colony, Near Patel Chowk, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi.

4. Mandan Singh, son of late Dukhi Singh, resident of Opposite Panch Mukhi Mandir, Sector-II, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. Panch Mukhi Mandir, Sector-II, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

5. Ram Rup Bhagat, son of late Bhikari Bhagat, Qr. No. B/2, Transport Colony, Near Patel Chowk, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi Transport Colony, Near Patel Chowk, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi

……….. Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand. 2.Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 2.Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

3. Divisional Manager, Transport Department, Jharkhand Bus Depu, Station Road, P.O. & P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi. Station Road, P.O. & P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi.

4. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Administrator, Parivahan Bhavan, Veer Chand Patel Marg, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. and District Patna. Parivahan Bhavan, Veer Chand Patel Marg, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. and District Patna.

……….. Respondents

----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioners : Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II For the BSRTC : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate ---- For the Respondents : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GP-II For the BSRTC : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate ---- 24/ 18.09.2025Initially the instant writ application was filed for the following reliefs:

a)For a direction upon the respondents to grant and pay the difference of arrears in revised pay-scale in the 5[th] PRC of Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 1.3.1989 to 23.06.2008 to the petitioners.difference of arrears in revised pay-scale in the 5[th] PRC of Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 1.3.1989 to 23.06.2008 to the petitioners.

b)For direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners under Time Bound Promotion Scheme and make payment of consequential benefits in their favour.petitioners under Time Bound Promotion Scheme and make payment of consequential benefits in their favour.

2. During the pendency of this writ application, petitioner has filed an interlocutory application for amending the prayer and pursuant thereto, the said application was allowed and further prayer was made as under:

“For quashing/ modifying the portion of office order no. 624/Pat. Dated 24.6.2008 issued by the Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, whereby a condition has been imposed that the actual monetary benefits of the revised pay-scale will be payable w.e.f. the date of issuance of the said order and after direct the concerned respondents to grant actual monetary benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.3.1989 and make payment of consequential benefits in favour of the petitioners so that they may not suffer irreparable loss and injury.”

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the issue involved in this application has been settled in several judgments including order passed in W.P.(S). No. 1117 of 2014, the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. As such, the petitioners may be given liberty to approach the concerned respondents who shall be directed to take decision with regard to prayers made in this writ application in view of applicable rules and regulations and also the observations made in W.P.(S). No. 1117 of 2014.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not object to the same.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant writ application stands disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to file detailed representation(s) along with documents in support of their contention before the respondent No. 2, who shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations and also the order passed in W.P.(S). No. 1117 of 2014, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation(s).

6. At this stage it is necessary to mention about the orders dated 19.03.2021 and 04.09.2025, whereby the respondents were directed to file supplementary counter-affidavit and since the same could not be filed before this Court, therefore, the liberty is given to the respective petitioners to raise their grievances before the appropriate authority.

7. It goes without saying that the entire admitted dues after passing of the fresh order shall be extended to the petitioners within a further period of 6 weeks.

8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

18[th] September, 2025Kunal Kunal

(Deepak Roshan, J.)