Ram Manohar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23449 of 2012 ====================================================== Ram Manohar Kumar, Son Of Birendra Prasad Yadav, Resident Of Village - Tiri, P.O. - Dhanjhoha, P.S. - Sour Bazar, District - Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

Engineer-In-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3.

Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4.

Special Officer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 5.

Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Madhepura 6.

Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Madhepura ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bishnu Nath Mahto, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC to SC 26 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-09-2024 Heard Mr. Bishnu Nath Mahto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Subodh Kumar learned AC to SC 26 for the State.

2. From perusal of the direction contained in order dated 19.12.2012, it appears that the competent authority was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide to regularize his services, as claimed in the present writ petition. The counter affidavit is devoid in respect of the said fact, however, it appears from the counter affidavit that

Patna High Court CWJC No.23449 of 2012(3) dt.24-09-2024 2/2 petitioner had never worked under PHED, Madhepura and hence the question of regularization of service of the petitioner does not arise.

3.I find that the decision of the competent authority on the representation of the petitioner has not been communicated to the petitioner and the same is required to be communicated to the petitioner. However, I find no reason to keep the present writ petition pending for the said reason. It is made clear that if any representation was filed on behalf of the petitioner in compliance of the order of this Court, the competent authority must forthwith communicate to the petitioner, as to what decision has been taken in respect of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the State must communicate forthwith the direction passed in this order.

5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U