Dinesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8144 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Dinesh Kumar Son Of Late Kamla Prasad Singh Resident Of Mohalla - Mainpura, P.O. And P.S. Danapur, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Home ( Special ) Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Home ( Special ) Department, Biharr, Patna

3. The Deputy Secretary, Home ( Special ) Department, Biharr, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the State : Mr. S.P. Ojha, G.P.22 Mr. A.B. Pandey, Mr. Praveen Kumar.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-06-2016 On 16.5.2016 when the case was called out no one was present on behalf of the petitioner but learned counsel for the State was present. I requested learned counsel for the State to inform Mr. Shobha Nath Jha to remain present on the date of listing of the case.

Learned counsel for the State informed the Court that present brief does not belong to Mr. Shobha Nath Jha and as such he refused to conduct this case.

In such view of the matter, matter is being disposed of on its own merit. It appears that petitioner was working in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.8144 of 2013 (5) dt.21-06-2016 Department of Home (Special) Government of Bihar, Patna on the post of orderly. One Ashok Kumar and others wanted to regularize their services approached this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 12872 of 2003 and this Court has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to consider the case of regularisation. It appears that petitioner has also approached this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 1691 of 2004 and whereafter cases of the petitioner has been disposed with a direction to consider the case.

The Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 19th November, 2005 recording that already 42 extra persons have been working on the post of orderly and that order was challenged before this Court by one Ashok Kumar and others vide C.W.J.C. NO.2894 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 1.5.2007 has considered the case of Ashok Kumar where it has been recorded that petitioner cannot be given benefit as already 42 extra persons were working and rejected the claim of the petitioner. This order completely covers the case of the petitioner having identical set of facts.

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any

Patna High Court CWJC No.8144 of 2013 (5) dt.21-06-2016 merit in this writ petition. Accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U