Patna High CourtL.P.A/582/2015dismissed

Jinish Lal Rai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-07-18Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.582 of 2015 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6970 of 2014 =========================================================== Jinish Lal Rai, S/o Late Ram Nandan Rai, Resident of village - Indra-Bara (Jitwarpur), Police Station - Tajpur, District - Samastipur. .... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar (through the Secretary, Building Construction Department) New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department (Building Construction Division) Darbhanga.

4. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department (Building Division), Begusarai.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance:

For the Appellant/s : Ms. Sudha Ambastha, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC 19 and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, AC to SC 19.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 18-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. We have perused the order dated 08.01.2015.

Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Application refusing to interfere with the speaking order dated 22.11.2012 which was passed by the Superintending Engineer refusing the case for regularization of the appellant for the reasons provided therein and the learned Single Judge did not find any

Patna High Court LPA No.582 of 2015 dt.18-07-2017 2/2 infirmity for such rejection.

Coupled with that it has also been taken note of that the appellant had already superannuated. Since this fact is correct that the work-charge employee retired on 15.02.2012 itself, no direction or decision can be taken for a person, who had already reached the age of 60 years. The question of regularization of such category of employee does not arise now.

The decision of the learned Single Judge to that extent does not require any interference.

The appeal is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Dilip, AR AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 19.07.2017 Transmission Date N/A