Patna High CourtCWJC/1546/2016dismissed

Bijender Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-01-10Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1546 of 2016 ====================================================== Bijender Kumar Singh son of Sri Murlidhar Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla- Rajendra Nagar Sohanipatti, Ward No.- 33, P.S.- Buxar (Town), District- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Collector, Buxar, District- Buxar.

4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Buxar, District- Buxar.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon, District- Buxar.

6. The Block Development Officer, Block- Brahmpur, District- Buxar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Ranjan For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, AC to GA 13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 10-01-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent State.

The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 21.11.2015.

It is submitted by Counsel for the State that the petitioner was working as Gramin Awas Sahayak on contractual basis. Referring to the initial contractual engagement of the petitioner dated 23.2.2014 it is pointed out that the same was for a period of one year. The period of contract was for one year, which in any circumstances has come to an end on 24.2.2015. Counsel for the petitioner complains that prior to completion of the contract period he has been removed on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1546 of 2016(2) dt.10-01-2019 2/2 basis of certain allegation without giving him any opportunity of hearing, as is evident from the letter issued by the Block Development Officer, Brahampur (Buxar) dated 10.2.2015. The contractual period of the petitioner has lapsed within fifteen days after issuance of the impugned order of the Block Development Officer dated 10.2.2015. Since the petitioner's contractual period has lapsed no order can be issued for reinstating him or that he may be taken back. The writ petition therefore has become infructuous as no order can be passed in favour of the petitioner in view of the admitted fact that his contractual period has lapsed on 24.2.2015.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U