Patna High CourtCWJC/7300/2015disposed

Ram Ekbal Rai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-29Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7300 of 2015 ====================================================== Ram Ekbal Rai Son of Late Parmand Rai, Resident of Mohalla - Saristabag, P.O. - Anisabad, P.S. - Gardanibag, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Public Health Engineering department, Govt. of Bihar.

3. The Chief Engineer (Mechanic), Public Health Engineer Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Executive Engineer, Public Health (Mechanic) Division, Patna West, Patna.

5. The Executive Engineer, Public Health (Mechanic) Division, Sasaram.

6. The Assistant Engineer (Mechanic), Public Health (Mechanic) Additional Division, Ara. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Satya Deo Kumar, SC 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-03-2016 The petitioner prays for quashing letter dated 2.9.2002, issued by respondent no.2 by which he has been declared nonest for the post of Pump Khalasi.

The petitioner submits that initially he was appointed as Daily wages worker on 1.11.1981 in the Public Health (Mechanical) Division, Sasaram. He subsequently joined as Pump Khalasi in view of letter dated 19.2.2002 of respondent no.5 and letter dated 15.3.2002 of Assistant Engineer, Mechanical, PHED. However, vide letter, dated 2.9.2002, the petitioner's service was cancelled and he was asked to work on the previous post of Daily wagers worker. In view of poor

Patna High Court CWJC No.7300 of 2015 (2) dt.29-03-2016 economic condition, he agreed to join on the reverted post of Daily wages worker. In the meantime, he fell ill and could not continue his work. After recovering from illness, the petitioner submitted his joining report, which was not accepted by respondents.

The petitioner submits that he has not even been paid for the period he has worked. He has even filed a detailed representation to this effect (contained in Annexure 5). Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner seeks disposal of his representation. In view of nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case I direct the concerned respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that the admitted dues of the petitioner should be paid expeditiously.

Shashi.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) U