Sumeet Kumar Sharma And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 9299 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.
Sumeet Kumar Sharma, son of Om Prakash Sharma, Resident of village - 18, Ramnagari, Sector - II, Post Office - Ashiyana Nagar, District- Patna 2.
Shri Ajay Kumar, son of Late Manohar Prasad Yadav, Resident of village - Baldhara Chand Deeh, Disrict- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar through the Regional Officer -cum- Environment Department, bapeps, Bihar Patna 2.
The Additional Project Director, Bihar Apda Punarwas Evam Punarnirman Society, Government of Bihar, Patna having his office, 430, 04th Floor, Vishweshwariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3.
The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Supaul 4.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Triveniganj, District- Supaul. 5.
The Sub- Divisional Officer, Birpur, District- Supaul. 6.
The Block Development Officer, Chhatapur, District- Supaul. 7.
The Block Development Officer, Basantpur, District- Supaul ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr Shekhar Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr Sumant Kr Singh, AC to GA II ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.
2 The admitted position is that contractual appointment of the petitioners subsisted only between 11.11.2013 to 10.11.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from
Patna High Court CWJC No.9299 of 2015 dt.23-10-2019 2/2 perusal of Annexure 6, it is apparent that the same was not proceeded by any show cause.
3 Copy of the writ petition was served on the learned State Counsel at the time of filing as far back as on 11.06.2015. More than four years have not been enough for filing a counter affidavit.
4 Submission of the petitioners' counsel is that the order dated 15.05.2015 was not preceded by any show cause to the petitioner, as is apparent from bare perusal of Annexure 6 that is the order dated 15.05.2015 bringing to an end the petitioners' contractual engagement.
5 In view of the aforesaid circumstance, this Court would only observe that the order dated 15.05.2015 shall not operate as stigma in respect of their claim for contractual engagement in future.
6 Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 26.10.2019 Transmission Date NA