Patna High CourtCWJC/17665/2008dismissed

Bhim Nath Rai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-03-10Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17665 of 2008 ====================================================== Bhim Nath Rai , son of Chandrika Rai, resident of village- Dharmagat Tola, P.O. Mujauna, District-Saran .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Patna

3. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Saran Range, Chapra

4. Mobile Veterinary Doctor, At Derni Saran

5. Manager, Govt. Cattle Breeding Form, Sipya, Gopalganj .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar I For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to SC-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-03-2017 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to SC-4.

The petitioner has approached this Court for directing the Respondents to pay his emoluments, which, according to him, is due for the period between 07.08.1991 to 30.06.1993.

A plea has been taken that though the petitioner had worked as casual labour, for the said period, he was paid emoluments only for two months.

It is not necessary to examine as to whether being casual labour, he was entitled to get monthly salary or not, but fact remains that this dispute was raised after several years before this Court by filing a writ petition vide C.W.J.C.No. 6157 of 2005,

Patna High Court CWJC No.17665 of 2008 (2) dt.10-03-2017 2/2 which was virtually dismissed as withdrawn. It is evident from Annexure-1 to the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade the Court that the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to avail internal remedies. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of Annexure-1 to the present writ petition, the petitioner had filed a representation before the competent authority, but no decision was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Considering the claim of the petitioner, which is completely stale as well as the fact that earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, there is no reason to further examine the matter.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U