← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/7275/2000dismissed

Kailash Thakur v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-08-07Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7275 of 2000 ====================================================== Kailash Thakur, son of late Sant Thakur, aged about 32 years, village Dhanuki, P.S. Rahika, District Madhubani .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan Campus, Bailey Road, Patna

2. The Joint Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan Campus, Bailey Road, Patna

3. The Engineer-in-Chief cum Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan Campus, Bailey Road, Patna

4. Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Muzaffarpur

5. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Darbhanga

6. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Madhubani

7. The Sub-divisional Officer, Public Health Engineering Department, Madhubani .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arup Kumar Chongdar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anshuman Singh, AP24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the fact that services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1989 and the present writ application seeking reinstatement came to be filed only on 8.8.2000, this Court taking into account that there is no explanation whatsoever for such a gross delay of eleven years in moving this Court, would find it difficult to now allow the prayer of reinstatement in the year 2015. In fact it would also not like to make any comment on such claim of the petitioner keeping in view that even initial order

Patna High Court CWJC No.7275 of 2000 (8) dt.07-08-2015 of engagement of the petitioner was not made in conformity of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. That being so, this application must fail and is accordingly dismissed.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/- U