Jai Mangal Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13824 of 2013 ====================================================== Jai Mangal Singh, Son of Balchari Singh, Resident of Village - Masahiya, P.O. Chongayi, P.S. - Murar, District - Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4.

The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5.

The Chief Engineer, Central Design Organization, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 6.

The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Darbhanga 7.

The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Darbhanga ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Giri, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kr No.2, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-09-2024 The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:- "i. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrear of the salary from September 2012 to December 2012 as well as the salary from April 2013 continuously till date.

ii. To further issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner regularly which has been stopped arbitrarily without any reason.

iii. For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner are entitled for."

Patna High Court CWJC No.13824 of 2013(5) dt.30-09-2024 2/2

2. Considering the statement made in Para-23 of the counter affidavit based on the information given in earlier paragraph, I find not to interfere in any manner. The petitioner, if so aggrieved, may avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law considering the fact that the petitioner has been paid salary for the period from 01.05.2009 to 31.03.2013 and the grievance will be redressed, if the services of the petitioner is regularized in view of the information contained in the counter affidavit.

3. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U