Patna High CourtCWJC/11765/2007dismissed

Amar Rai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-01-21Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11765 of 2007 =========================================================== Amar Rai, son of late Sukhari Rai, resident of village - Dumariya, Police Station - Dumariya Ghat, District - East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Special Secretary Police (Home), Bihar, Patna

3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Ptana

4. The Collector, East Champaran, Motihari

5. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari

6. The Anchal Adhikari, Aneraj Block East Champaran, Motihari

7. The Officer in Charge, Dumariya Ghat Police Station, East Champaran, Motihari

8. The Civil Surgeon, East Champaran, Motihari

9. The District Provident Fund Officer, East Champaran, Motihari

10. The Accountant General, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. D.K.TONDON For the Respondent/s :

Mr. (GA5) Mr. L.P.K.Rajgriha Mr. J.P.Karn =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-01-2015 *************** Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In absence of any clear and unimpeachable evidence with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner, the decision contained in Annexure-2, superannuating the petitioner w.e.f. 30.06.1999, is not required to be interfered with.

It was very much open to the petitioner to bring evidence on record in the present writ application as well to establish his bona fide and credentials with regard to his actual age and the so called right of his to

Patna High Court CWJC No.11765 of 2007 dt.21-01-2015 2/2 continue on the post till 01.01.2000.

The cat is out of bag. The whole reason for filing of the present writ application is because the petitioner has not completed 10 years of minimum service under the respondent-State authorities, which does not beget him benefit of pension.

The fact is that the Chaukidar were never a government servant. It was only in the year 1990 that they became one. If the number of years do not add up in favour of the petitioner for pension, the Court is not going to permit the petitioner to extend the period of his service by raising a controversy with regard to his retirement in the year 1999, by filing the writ application in the year 2007.

Writ application has no merit, it is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) SKM/- U