Umesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2564 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9224 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Umesh Kumar Son of Sri Rajendra Prasad resident of village - Irki, P.S. Jehanabad, District Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar through Sri Prataya Amrit, the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. Sri Dev Narayan Prasad, Engineer-in-Chief cum Special Secretary , Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Sri Lakshmi Narayan Das, the Chief Engineer, South Bihar Zone, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. Sri Shavilesh Kumar, the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. Sri Bhabani Nandan, the Superintending Engineer, Magadh Road Circle, Road Construction Department, Gaya.

6. Sri Amarnath Pathak, the Executive Engineer, Road Division No. 1, Road Construction Department, Jehanabad.

7. Sri Aditya Kumar Das the District Magistrate, Jehanabad. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 19-05-2017 C.W.J.C. No.9224 of 2012 was disposed of on 10.7.2012 with a direction that taking in view the length of service of the petitioner and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 1, the case of the petitioner for regularization be considered and a decision taken. The show cause filed by respondent No.6 goes to show that the case was considered, the matter was placed before the

Patna High Court MJC No.2564 of 2014 (3) dt.19-05-2017 2/2 appropriate Committee which conducted its deliberation on 29.11.2014, as is evident from Annexure A to the show cause, and after recording various reasons the claim has been rejected. Once the case has been considered and claim rejected, no further action is required to be taken in the contempt proceeding. In case the petitioner is aggrieved with the manner in which the order has been passed, it gives a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding.

With the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner, this appeal is disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) K.C.jha/- U