- (1.) When the matter is called out, counsel for the appellant is absent. We have heard counsel for the State, who has submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding the writ petition preferred by this Appellant. The appellant, who is original petitioner, has already retired from the service on 31st October, 2012 and he is seeking benefits of 1st and 2nd Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme and also the payment of provisional pension and thereafter, the original petitioner was paid provident fund amount and the group insurance amount and therefore, the learned Single Judge instead of keeping the writ petition pending, directed the original petitioner to represent before the Secretary, State Board of Technical Education, State of Jharkhand to represent his case before issuing writ of mandamus. The party has to approach the Government and if there is failure to get justice thereafter only the writ of mandamus can be issued and hence, there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge in relegating the writ petition.
(2.) Having heard counsel for the State and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:-- (i) It appears that the appellant, who is original petitioner, has retired from the post of Clerk on 31st October, 2012 while he was working with the respondent-State Board of Technical Education. (ii) It appears that that there are arguments canvassed by the original petitioner about the payment of pension as well as 1st and 2nd Modified Assured Career Progression benefits. (iii) If further appears that the learned Single Judge has relegated the petition to the Government because there was no impugned order at all in the writ petition denying the benefits of the 1st and 2nd Modified Assured Career Progression and nor there was any impugned order for denying the benefits of pension. It ought to be kept in mind that before issuing the writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner ought to have approached the Government and if the Government is passing any order against the interest of the petitioner or if the Government is silent for more than reasonable period then only the writ of mandamus can be preferred. On this cardinal principle of issuance of writ of mandamus, the writ petitioner had been relegated to the concerned authorities especially to respondent No. 4 in the writ petition and no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3153 of 2013 dated 22nd April, 2014 even otherwise also, no prejudice has been caused to the original petitioner by the decision which is under challenge. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.;