Hari Ram And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11009 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

Hari Ram, Son of Phakira Ram, Resident of Village - Chandragarh, P.O. - Chandragarh, P.S. - Nabinagar, Chandargarh, District - Aurangabad, State - Bihar.

2.

Praduman Kumar, Son of Maheshar Yadav, Resident of Village - Ghora Dihri, P.O. Dadhapi, P.S. Madanpur, District - Aurangabad, State - Bihar. 3.

Binod Bihari Singh, Son of Ramdeni Singh, Resident of Village - Bara, P.O. - Bara, P.S.- Nabinagar, District - Aurangabad, State - Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Mass Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Director, Primary Education Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Director, Mass Education, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, AC to AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 11-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

Having worked for sometime as Instructors in the Non-formal Education Programme, the petitioners are claiming parity with the beneficiaries of order dated 03.03.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 384 of 2017.

It is submitted that the petitioners would approach the

Patna High Court CWJC No.11009 of 2018(2) dt.11-08-2022 2/2 respondent authorities for similar relief.

The prayer is that the petitioners may be permitted to approach Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

In view of the limited submission, pendency of the instant writ petition would be futile as there is no adjudication called for in the instant writ proceedings.

For facilitating the consideration of the petitioners' claim in light of the judgment noted above, this application is disposed of.

The petitioners should make their representation within two weeks. The authority should consider the claim within three months.

shashank/M.E.H.- (Madhuresh Prasad, J) U