Balram Kumar Rawat v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4338 of 2016 ====================================================== Balram Kumar Rawat Son of Bishundeo Rawat Resident of Village- Halajot Po Jhajha PS Jhajha District Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Director,Department of Soil Conservation Bihar Patna-cum-Chief Executive Officer, D.W.D.S. S.C.

3.

The Deputy Director , Soil conservation , Patna Parikaram , Patna. 4.

The Collector- Jamui -cum-Chairman, District Jalchhajan Samiti Jamui. 5.

The Deputy Director Agriculture Engineering, Soil Conservation -cumDistrict Nodal Officer, Depar 6.

The Assistant Director Shashya Soil Conservation Department of Agriculture Jamui.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arjun Pd. Keshri For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar, AC to GP4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 15-05-2019 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents-State.

Petitioner was engaged on the basis of contract as a peon-cum- night guard by the District Magistrate, Jamui. Contractual service of the petitioner has been brought to an end by order dated 18.06.2015 which is impugned in the instant petition.

It is submitted that in view of the petitioner's unauthorized absence, his contract has been brought to an end without complying the procedural requirement and without

Patna High Court CWJC No.4338 of 2016(2) dt.15-05-2019 2/2 issuing any show cause to the petitioner.

Counsel for the State has pointed out that contract itself contemplates that on account of unauthorized absence, contract was to come to an end. It is also submitted that from the order dated 18.06.2015 it is apparent that authorities had found service of the petitioner to be no longer required. The period of contract had admittedly ended in April, 2014, as it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that date of contract was 15.05.2013 and the same was valid only for a period of 11 months.

Having considered the aforesaid facts this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 18.06.2015. Writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) s.hassan/- U