Ram Babu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2692 of 2025 ====================================================== Ram Babu Ram S/o Late Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Village/Mohalla - New Rahimpur, P.O. and P.S - Parsa Bazar, PIN- 804453, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary P.H.E.D Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Zonal Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Patna Cone, Patna.

4.

The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Patna Anchal, Patna.

5.

The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Patna East, Chhajjubag, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Prakash Sinha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.K.P. Gupta, G.P.-10 Mr.Deepanjali Gupta, AC to GP-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 15-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. On the ground of compassionate appointment, petitioner was appointed on the post of Tracer and joined his service on 08.12.1998. Even after completion of more than 25 years he has not been promoted yet, the petitioner has already made his representation before the respondent/ competent authority vide Annexure '2' which has been recommended by the executive engineer and representation submitted by the petitioner has been sent to the Chief Engineer vide Annexure '4' dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.2692 of 2025(2) dt.15-02-2025 2/2 08.04.2024 but no decision has been taken by the respondent/competent authority. It is prayed by the learned counsel that this petition may be disposed of directing the respondent/competent authority to take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner within a specific period fixed by this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of and the respondent/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner which he has already raised through his representation (Annexure '4') and pass a reasoned order in accordance with relevant rules and law as early as possible probably within 45 days from today and the petitioner is also given liberty to approach this court again, if the occasion arises later on.

5. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) tusharika/- U