Bageshwar Pd. Shahi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20746 of 2012 ====================================================== Bageshwar Prasad Shahi S/o Shri Ramdev Shahi R/o Village+Post- Devpur Via Yogiya, District- Saran (Chapra) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Arts And Culture, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Director, Adult Education Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4.

The Director, Department of Arts And Culture Government of Bihar, Patna 5.

The Director, Student and Youth Welfare Directorate, Bihar 6.

The Joint Secretary, Department of Arts And Culture, Government of Bihar, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Archana Meenakshee, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 02-09-2025

1. Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, learned counsel appears and submits that he has no instructions in the matter.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents are present.

3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application for the following relief :- "1. That this is an application praying for quashing Order No. 139 passed by the In-charge Director, Student & Youth Welfare Directorate, Bihar (Respondent No. 5) communicated vide Memo No. 1643 dated 18/July/2011 (Annexure 17) and, further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Writ of

Patna High Court CWJC No.20746 of 2012(5) dt.02-09-2025 2/2 Mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary of the petitioner, from the date on which he submitted his joining (i.e., 23/08/06) till the date of his posting."

4. When the matter was taken up on 18.8.2025, the Court had passed the following order :- "No one appears for the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State is present.

3. This is an older matter of the year 2012 and the petitioner is not showing interest in pressing the writ application. By way of last indulgence the case is being adjourned by two weeks and if on the next date also no one appears on behalf of the petitioner to press the writ application, then the Court may consider dismissing it for non-prosecution.

4. Put up this case on 01.09.2025."

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, the application stands dismissed as not pressed.

6. However, in the facts of the case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ application, if his grievances have still not been redressed.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U