← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/4303/2026dismissed

Nityanand Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-26Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4303 of 2026 ====================================================== Nityanand Tiwari S/o Late Ram Nandan Tiwari, R/o-Kurkuri, P.O.-Paliganj, P.S.-Paliganj, Dist.-Patna, Bihar, PIN-801110. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna-800015. 2.

The Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Finance Department, Main Secretariat, Patna800015. 3.

The Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Finance (Personal Claim Fixation Cell) Deparmtent, Annexy Block-03 (Ground Floor) Old Secretariat, Patna800015. 4.

The Accountant General (A and E), Veerchand Patel Marg, Patna-800001. 5.

The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Kharagpur-Tarapur, Munger, Pin-813221.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP- 4 For the AG :

Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate Ms. Vijeta Kumari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 26-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

"1. A. For direction upon the respondents to grant regular increment w.e.f. 01.04.1994 with all consequential benefit for which the petitioner is entitle.

B. For direction upon the respondent to treat the service of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer

Patna High Court CWJC No.4303 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026 2/2 (Gazetted Post) from 28.6.2002 in place of 01.09.2002.

C. For any other relief/reliefs for the petitioner is entitled under law as well as on facts."

3. The petitioner who retired in the year 2003 and is presently 80 years old has filed the instant writ application seeking reliefs with respect to his increment etc which according to the petitioner should have been given to him in the year 1994 and 2002.

4. In the opinion of the Court, the writ application is fit to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches.

5. The writ application is dismissed.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U