Most. Santi Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6821 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Most. Santi Devi, Wife of Late Sachidanand Mishra, Resident of VillageMadhopur Bujurg, P.S.- Paro, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) Public Health Engineering Department, Circle- Muzaffarpur.

4. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical) Public Health Division, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Accountant General, State Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R N Mukhopadhyay Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr. GP27- PURNENDU SINGH For Accountant General : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-04-2016 Annexure-1 is the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of PHED, Government of Bihar. The impugned order is dated 21.07.2010.

To cut short the matter, CWJC No. 8067 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner for benefit of pension etc. by treating her husband to be a regular employee under the State by conferring the benefit of regularization since he was initially engaged as a daily wager and then was given the status of a work charge employee though reverted, which was another subject matter of dispute.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6821 of 2014 dt.27-04-2016 The Principal Secretary has taken the complete history of the work of the husband of the petitioner which included his engagement and status from time to time. The order clearly indicates that no conferment of any status of any kind much less a permanent status was granted to the husband of the petitioner till the time of his death on 10.01.2003.

Rationale and reasoning provided by the Principal Secretary rejecting the prayer of the petitioner cannot be said to be erroneous and contrary to any law in this regard.

Writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) R.K.Pathak/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 28/04/2016 Transmission Date