Ramjee Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2081 of 2022 ====================================================== Ramjee Das S/o- late Sitaram Resident of Mohalla- Delha Dularganj, P.O.- R.S. Gaya, P.S.- Delha, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4.

The District Magistrate, District- Gaya.

5.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, District- Gaya. 6.

The Additional District Magistrate, Revenue, Collectorate, Gaya. 7.

The Additional District Magistrate, Departmental Enquiry, Collectorate, Gaya.

8.

The In-charge Officer, District Legal Section, Collectorate, District- Gaya. 9.

The Demarcation Officer, Collectorate, District- Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate Mr. Mritunjay Harsh, Advocate Mr. Keshav Anand, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to GP 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks to avail statutory efficacious remedy of revision as contained in Rule 28 of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules against the impugned orders.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2081 of 2022(4) dt.03-07-2026 2/2

3. Learned counsel further seeks that the authority concerned may consider to condone the delay in filing the revision petition authority concerned is directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within the statutory instruction of the State Government, issued from time to time.

4. In view of the fact that the petitioner was pursuing remedy before this Court, the Revisional Authority may consider to condone the delay, if any, considering the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing remedy before this Court.

5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U