Praphul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5874 of 2022 ====================================================== Praphul Kumar, Son of Late Bijay Kumar, Resident of Village-Kanhauli Mallik Tol, P.S.-Kanhauli, District-Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secreary, Department of General Administration Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Bihar Prashashnik Sudhar Mission Society (B.P.S.M.) through its Director.

3.

The Mission Director, B.P.S.M.S., Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate-Cu-District Mision Director, Madhubani. 5.

The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Madhubani. 6.

The District Bhudan Yagyan Committee, Madhubani, through its Karyalaya Mantri.

7.

The Karyalaya Mantri, District Bhudan Yagyan Committee Office, Madhubani.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the State :

Mr.M. Nasrul Huda Khan, SC 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 08-09-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working in contractual establishment as an Executive Assistant in the District Bhoodan Office whereafter his posting now is in lurch and his contractual services have not been continued though other similarly situated have been continued and that there is some arrears of honorarium pending with the Authorities. In this connection he has made an application/representation before the District Magistrate,

Patna High Court CWJC No.5874 of 2022(2) dt.08-09-2022 2/2 Madhubani (Annexure-7). His grievance is that no action has been taken on his representation.

Learned Counsel for the State submits that having regard to the nature of petitioner's existence being contractual he would have no right, however, he is not in a position to dispute that petitioner's representation is required to be considered and disposed of by the District Magistrate (Respondent No.4).

Considering the rival submissions, without expressing any opinion on submission of the parties and in view of the limited nature of prayer, writ application need not be kept pending, and is accordingly disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's representation by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Order.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- U