Patna High CourtL.P.A/196/2015dismissed

Chandeshwar Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-06-29The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.196 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22162 of 2013 ====================================================== Chandeshwar Ram Son of Late Jhagru Ram Ex-Assistnt Teacher, Railway Balak Middle School, Neura Colony, Khagaul, Danapur-2, Patna, Resdent of Mohalla- Bari Khagaul, Post Office and Police station-Khagaul,DistrictPatna. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar , through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Education Officer, Patna, District-Patna.

4. District Programme Officer (Estt.) Patna.

5. Area Education Officer, Danapur, Patna.

6. Head Master - cum-Drawing Disbursing Officer, Nagar Palika Middl School, Khagaul, Dstrict- Patna.

7. Head Master ,Railway Balak Middle School, Neura Colony, Khagaul, District- Patna.

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

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nand Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gp15- Sharad Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 29-06-2017 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition and the order passed by the writ court, we are of the considered view that for the period from 11.12. 1999 to 05.06.2007 the petitioner was absent and had not worked. That being so, the respondents have not committed any error in adjusting the aforesaid period by

Patna High Court LPA No.196 of 2015 (3) dt.29-06-2017 2/2 sanctioning 2523 days of extraordinary leave instead of taking disciplinary action. The learned writ court has mentioned various reasons as to why the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit. We agree with the same, thus, finding no error in the impugned order, the appeal stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U