Ramdeo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.83 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21421 of 2014 ====================================================== Ramdeo Yadav, aged about 54 years, Male, Son of late Darogi Yadav, Resident of Ganjpar, Rajgir, P.S.-Rajgir, District - Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda 5.

The District Account Officer, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif 6.

The Senior in charge officer, District Establishment Section, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif.

7.

The Additional Collector cum Conducting officer, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif 8.

The Deputy Collector (Est.) Nalanda Collectoriate, Bihar Sharif ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Prabhat Kumar Verma (AAG-3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This Review Application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 07.09.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21421 of 2014.

The order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21421 of 2014 is

Patna High Court C. REV. No.83 of 2019(3) dt.10-07-2019 2/3 as follows:- "

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact of the present case is identical to the case of C.W.J.C. No. 1714 of 2015 (Balmukund Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), the aforesaid order squarely covers the issue involved in the present case. In such view of the matter, the concerned authority is directed to examine the case of petitioner and if it is found that present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid case, the same benefit should also be extended to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Balmukund Prasad (petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.1714 of 2016), but no effective relief has been granted to this petitioner and as such the State is not ready to give the relief to the petitioner. This Court feels that there is no error in the order, but only the writ petition has been disposed of in the terms of the aforesaid case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 1714 of 2015, hence relief which the petitioner is seeking in this review application cannot be granted. However, for the ends of justice, the order dated 07.09.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21421 of 2014 is withdrawn

Patna High Court C. REV. No.83 of 2019(3) dt.10-07-2019 3/3 and the main case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 21421 of 2014 is restored and it will be heard accordingly.

Accordingly, this Review Application is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U