Lallan Singh v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22240 of 2018 ====================================================== Lallan Singh Son of Late Gulzar Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Tapeshwar Nagar, Police Station- Rupaspur, Post Office- B.V. College, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The Union of India.
2.
The Chief Director, Cooperation Department, Government of India at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi- 11001 3.
The Chairman, National Council for Cooperative Training, At- J.L. Nehru National Cooperative Comple 4.
The Director General, N.C.C.T. at Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016. 5.
The Secretary, N.C.C.T. at Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016. 6.
The Director, Vaikunth Mehta National Institute of Cooperative Management, Pune.
7.
The Regional Director, D.N.S. Regional Institute At Shastri Nagar, Patna800013. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Md. Shamimul Hoda, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr. S.D Sanjay Addl. Soc. Gen.
For the UOI :
Mr. Satyawrat Verma, C.G.C ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 25-06-2019 Earlier petitioner has approached in C.W.J.C. No.4852 of 2012 the writ application was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition. Earlier the petitioner has not pressed this claim as to age of superannuation. Now he wants that his case for continuity in service for the purpose of pensionary benefit may be considered by the respondents. He submits that he may be granted liberty to approach the respondents for appropriate decision.
Accordingly, the present writ application is disposed
Patna High Court CWJC No.22240 of 2018(3) dt.25-06-2019 2/2 of with liberty to the respondents to file representation before the competent authority and respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date/receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of petitioner. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) mdrashid/- U