Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4202 of 2026 ====================================================== Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar Mishra Son of Indranand Mishra, Resident of Village- Rampur Bangla Bangaon, Ward No. 7, Police Station- Bangaon, District- Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health and Engineering (P.H.E.D.), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary (Head Quarter), P.H.E.D., Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. Division, Saharsa. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel (16) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 24-03-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed directing respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on any suitable Class-IV Post in view of policy decision of respondent-Department as petitioner is land looser whose valuable land was taken for construction of Bungalow Inspection Building of P.H.E.D. with assurance that land given family will get one Government employment by department regarding which vide Memo No.946 dated 01.11.1995 necessary inter departmental communication was made from the level of

Patna High Court CWJC No.4202 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026 2/2 respondent No.2 with respondent No.3, but thereafter no concrete decision could be taken and, as such, petitioner continuously pursue the matter departmentally and lastly represented the claim before respondent No.2 on 01.09.2025, which is still pending and no final decision has been taken causing much inconvenience to the petitioner.

3. Learned Counsel for the State raised preliminary objection and submits that according to the pleading of the petitioner the cause of action has been developed for the petitioner in the year 1990, but he has filed the instant writ petition in the year 2026 that is after 36 years.

4. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in a matter, which is 36 years old. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, if compensation has not been received by the petitioner or his ancestor, then he shall be at liberty to move before the appropriate forum with supporting document that he or his ancestor had not received compensation.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U