Stuti Bharti And ORS v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17887 of 2014 ====================================================== 1.

Stuti Bharti W/o Vivek Kumar resident of Sona Sadan Road No. 2 B, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Hanuman Nagar, P.S. - Kankarbagh, District- Patna. 2.

Ajeet Kumar S/o Sri Dayal Roy Resident of Mohallah - Kashipur K.E. Inter College Road, District- Samastipur.

3.

Dhirendra Kumar Ranjan S/o Shri Dinesh Prasad REsident of Old Jakkanpur, House No. JKS/D-62, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

2.

The Reserve Bank of India through its Governor, Central Offioce, 21st Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai. 3.

The Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, 21st Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai. 4.

The General Manager Reserve Bank of India, Human Resource Management Department, South Gandhi Maida, Patna, Bihar. 5.

The Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Human Resource Management Department, South Gandhi Maidan, Patna, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukund Jee, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar, ASG For Reserve Bank of India:

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan no. 1, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 02-08-2023 1.

The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :- "(i) To issue writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 08/08/2014 issued by respondent no. 5 whereby and whereunder petitioner's representation for their absorption has been rejected mechanically without assigning any reason.

(ii) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus

Patna High Court CWJC No.17887 of 2014(2) dt.02-08-2023 2/2 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for absorption and continue their service after removing the arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust clause of contract and further direction be issued to respondents to act in consonance with legal tenets relating to legitimate expectation and equity.

(iii) It is further prayed that during the pendency of this writ application, petitioners be not removed from service and the terms of the contract, which is having an adverse repercussion upon the services of petitioners, be stayed."

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioners to avail such other alternative remedies, as are otherwise available under the law for redressal of their grievances. Liberty so sought, is granted. 3.

The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U