SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain policy of the State is announced with much fun fair without corresponding zeal or commitment for its implementation. That is what this Court perceives as would be evident from the dispute raised in the present writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in bringing to the notice of this Court Annexure-7 which had been issued by the Department of Health which had set up a Grievance Redressal Committee headed by the Principal Secretary of Health Department, Government of Bihar with many other members with the object of implementation of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 . But it seems that constitution of that Committee is only to fulfill the obligation of that policy and not make it functional to prevent generation of litigation even with regard to a minor issue. If it was so, occasion for filing the present writ application would not have arisen.

(2.) The brief facts, which are being taken note of in the order is required to be noted looking at the nature of the order which is going to be passed by this Court.

(3.) By virtue of notification no. 1193(3) dated 30.12.2010 issued by one Praveen Kumar, Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna contained in Annexure-1, the benefit of dynamic 3rd A.C.P. was granted to many a doctors including the present petitioner. Name of the present petitioner figures at serial no. 495. By virtue of this notification, petitioner was to beget the benefit of 3rd dynamic A.C.P. with effect from 25.11.2008. However, when this notification was forwarded to the office of the Accountant General to make authoriation for payment, the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna raised an objection vide letter dated 17.3.2011 which is Annexure-4 to the writ application indicating therein that since joining of the petitioner on the post under the Health Department is reflected from the records as 15.1.1991, he completes 18 years of service on 15.1.2009 and not 25.11.2008. A clarification was sought for from the concerned respondent of the Health Department but more than a year has gone past but nothing came to be done by the authorities of the Health Department. Petitioner has been filing repeated applications before the Additional Secretary of the Public Grievance Redressal Cell of the Health Department which would be evident from various annexures annexed with the writ application but whose grievances they are redressing is not known to this Court because so far as the present petitioner is concerned he has had to approach the High Court as there was inaction on the part of the Health Department to take a decision on this issue.