Shatrughan Ray v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4278 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12762 of 2005 ====================================================== Shatrughan Ray, son of late Chand Govind Ray, resident of village- and post office - Sherpur Kala, P.S.- Bhawarkol, District- Gazipur (U.P.). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary (Formarly known as Commissioner cum Secretary, W.R.D. ) Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna.

3. Sri AJaideo, the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna.

4. Mr. Rajeshwar Daya, the Engineer in Chief (North), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna.

5. mr. Ram Pukar Ranjan, the Chief Engineer, Balmikinagar, Water Resources Department, Balmikinagar.

6. Mr. Govind Prasad, the Executive Engineer, Trihut Division No.1, Motihari.

7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

8. Mrs. Rupam Kuamri, the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Personal Claim Cell, Patna.

9. Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary, the District Provident Fund Officer, Motihari. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shyam Kishor Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 21-02-2018 From the show cause and supplementary show cause filed by the respondents on 8.11.2017, it is seen that promotion and consequential benefit have been granted to the petitioner. The consequential benefits granted and the manner in which they have been granted is indicated by the respondents in their supplementary show cause filed along with the documents and orders annexed thereto.

Patna High Court MJC No.4278 of 2013 (23) dt.21-02-2018 2/2 In view of the aforesaid, no further action is required to be taken in the matter as this Court is satisfied with the compliance reported by the respondents.

However, in case the petitioner has any grievance still subsisting, arising out of the subsequent action with regard to the manner in which the benefit and consequential relief have been granted to him, he may challenge the same in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding.

With the aforesaid liberty, this application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) K.C.jha/- U