Ali Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14477 of 2014 =========================================================== Ali Ahmad, son of late Abdul Samar, resident of Mohalla - Anwar Colony, Danbad, Umar Dargah Lane Jalla Gali, Near Nityanand Ka Kuan, P S - Khajekala, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Patna Municipal Corporation through its Municipal Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Municipal Commissioner, Patna.

5. The Additional Municipal Commissioner (Establishment), Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. JAWAHAR PD. KARN, AAG 4 Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 26-04-2016 It is the claim of the petitioner that he was engaged as a daily wager w.e.f. 01.10.1989 under the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority.

As is known that the said authority was abolished and the necessary legislation repealed. As per the new arrangement no doubt the assets and liabilities vested in the Patna Municipal Corporation but looking at the status of the petitioner there cannot be a presumption that even his service was taken over by the Municipal Corporation. Irrespective of the above position, even if what the petitioner has asserted in the writ application is correct that he was

Patna High Court CWJC No.14477 of 2014 dt.26-04-2016 disengaged by the Municipal Corporation for one day's absence from duty and therefore, a mandamus can be issued for his reinstatement is a far fetched prayer to make looking at the status of the petitioner and keeping in mind that such a disengagement was issued on 25/10/2011 and almost five years have gone past now since petitioner has had no relationship with the respondent Municipal Corporation in any capacity.

Certain leeway in such matter will have to be given to the authority and the Court in the given facts and status of the petitioner will not issue a mandamus for his reinstatement merely because some one in the system for whatever consideration had initiated a proposal in the year 2013 for his reinstatement.

Writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) R.K.Pathak/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 26/04/2016 Transmission Date