Ram Prasad Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1679 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8174 of 2007 =========================================================== Ram Prasad Sah S/O Late Harihar Sah R/O Vill.- Jagarnath Basana, P.O. & P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Water Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Old Secretariat, Patna
3. The Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna
4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Balmiki Nagar, Patna
5. The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division No. 2, Bettiah
6. The Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Gandok Yojna, Bettiah
7. The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division No. 1, Bettiah In-Charge Of Revenue Division, Gandok Yojna, Bettiah .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant :
Mr. Shree Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. K.K.Jha, AAG-8 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 10-03-2017 Delay of 35 days is condoned. I.A. No. 9267 of 2013 is allowed.
Since the sole appellant is dead, a substitution petition, namely, I.A. No. 8202 of 2014 has been filed. The names of legal heirs have been provided in paragraph 2. Substitution is allowed. Having heard counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the State, the Court fails to appreciate as to why this
Patna High Court LPA No.1679 of 2013 dt.10-03-2017 2/2 appeal was filed in the very first place, because order is in favour of the erstwhile employee and if the post of Daftary, in terms of Annexure-8, was not acceptable to him then he should have fought the battle before the learned single Judge by either asking for a review/modification of the order. The prayer which he is asking for against the decision of the learned single Judge cannot be allowed at this juncture.
Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) Pawan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 10.03.2017 Transmission Date N/A