Ram Pukar Ram Andors v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15753 of 2007 ======================================================

1. Ram Pukar Ram Son of Shri Parmeshwar Ram R/o village Sirsiyan Bazar, P.S. Bela, Sitamarhi

2. Vinod Ram son of Shri Sita Ram R/o village Kushmari P.S. Riga, Sitamarhi

3. Ranjan Shankar S/o Shri Braj Kishore Singh R/o village Prem Nagar Malikhana P.S. Nishadpur, Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

Director, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.

Deputy director, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.

Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sitamarhi 5.

The District Development Officer, Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 01-05-2015 Heard Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh for the petitioners. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent Zila Parishad. The petitioners were appointed by the respondent Zila Parishad. Their services were, however, terminated by different orders passed in the year 1992. They challenged the correctness thereof before this Court in CWJC No. 4369 of 1992. A bench of this Court heard the said writ petition along with CWJC No. 3999 of 1992 and disposed of the same by order dated 14th September, 1994. The operative portion of the said order reads thus:- "Accordingly, these applications are allowed and impugned orders dated 13.04.1992 copies of which are annexed as Annexure 4 series in C.W.J.C. No. 4369/92 and Annexure-6 in C.W.J.C. No. 3999/92 are hereby quashed."

Patna High Court CWJC No.15753 of 2007 (5) dt.01-05-2015 2 / 2 The petitioners thereafter submitted their joining which was accepted by an order dated 07.12.1994. There is no dispute that the petitioners are in receipt of salary thereafter. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been paid their salary for the period they remained out of job. It does not appear from the writ order that any such direction was issued.

Mr. Singh states that one person who was similarly treated and removed from service was later granted the benefit. He, therefore, seeks permission of the Court to approach the appropriate authority of the Zila Parishad by filing a representation for consideration and disposal.

In view of aforesaid, present writ application is disposed of permitting the petitioners to make such representation for consideration and disposal in accordance with law by the concerned authority.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U