Suresh Mishra v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8621 of 2014 =========================================================== Suresh Mishra Son of Sri Baleshwar Mishra Resident of Village Makroi, P .OMaheshpur, P.S- Pipra Bazar, District Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner- Cum- Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Flood Control Project, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar AC to GP-24 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

Repeated efforts made by the petitioner have not helped him achieve the object of becoming a government servant as part of regular establishment. He had moved the High Court earlier for regularization of his service on the basis of the fact that he was engaged as a Chain Man by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Flood Control Project, Patna on 08.05.1985. He worked in that capacity till 2002 and then thereafter the legal battle began for regularization.

No doubt, in the earlier round of litigation, a direction was issued upon the respondents to consider his claim for

Patna High Court CWJC No.8621 of 2014 dt.21-09-2016 2/2 regularization, keeping in mind that some similarly situated persons have also derived the benefit, but the concerned authority after consideration of the factual aspect of the matter has passed a speaking order, contained in Annexure-10, dated 18.03.2010, rejecting his claim by taking into consideration the background and the manner in which the petitioner was engaged. It smacks of certain wrong doing by the authority concerned and such engagement also led to institution of a vigilance case against the Special Land Acquisition Officer, because it seems that he had made a large number of such engagements without the authority of law and approval from any quarter.

In the controversial circumstances, as above, coupled with the fact that there is no correlation between the respondents and the petitioner after the year 2002, there cannot be any direction for his regularization by interfering with Annexure-10. The reasons provided in the impugned order are cogent and valid grounds which does not require interference.

Writ application has no merit, it is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) SKM/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE Uploading Date 22.09.2016 Transmission Date