Ravindra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1553 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13498 of 2013 ====================================================== Ravindra Kumar Singh Son Of Vishwanath Singh Resident Of Village Narayani Nagar Sachopati, P.S. Hazipur District Hazipur (Vaishali). .... .... Appellant

Versus

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

2. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Deputy Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Chief Engineer, South Bihar Sub Division, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

5. The Superintending Engineer, South Circle, Building Construction, Government of Bihar, Patna

6. The Executive Officer, Garden Division, Building Construction Department, Patna ....

....

Respondents/Respondents

7. Birendra Kumar Singh Son of Anil Kumar Singh Resident of Akilpur Road No. A/4 Barua, P.S. Sonpur District Saran at Chapra

8. Awadhesh Kumar Son of Saheb Lal Rai Resident of Purani Panapur Akilpur P.S. Danapur District Patna

9. Dina Nath Dubey Son of Nathun Dubey Resident of Village Uchauri Mohammadpur P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna

10. Om Prakash Tiwary Son of Nand Lal Tiwary Resident of South Mithila Colony, Betaganj P.S. Digha District Patna

11. Narendra Prasad Singh Son of Ramasharay, Resident of Village Dudhiya Akilpur, P.S. Danapur, District Patna

12. Rajeev Kumar Son of Ravindra Kumar Singh Resident of Sankatmochan Nagar Ara Chandwa P.S. Nawada District Ara

13. Ritesh Kumar Son of Umesh Prasad Resident of Village Kushaday Lalganj P.S. Lalganj District Vaishali (Hajipur)

14. Akhilesh Prasad Son of Late Rama Shankar Prasad Resident of Kushadey P.S. Lalganj District Vishali (Hajipur)

15. Md. Jubair Khan Son of Md. Kadir Khan Resident of Village Ariyari Phaspar P.S. Ariyari District Munger

16. Rajendra Sahu Son of Ganeshi Sahu Resident of Village Ariyari Phaspar P.S. Ariyari District Munger

17. Santosh Kumar Son of Late Ramashankar Prasad Resident of Village Kusade P.O. & P.S. Lalganj Distt Vaishali .... .... Petitioners/Performa Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant :

Mr. Dilip Kumar Tondon, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1-6: Smt. Binita Singh, G.P.-31 Mr. Rewati Kant Raman, A.C. to G.P.-31 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN

Patna High Court LPA No.1553 of 2014 (6) dt.13-01-2015 2/3 SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) 13-01-2015 We have heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Tondon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Smt. Binita Singh, learned Government Pleader No. 31 appearing for the State.

In the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court, the appellant has questioned the order, dated 09.05.2014, passed by learned single Judge, in C.W.J.C. No. 13498 of 2013, whereby the petitioner's prayer to direct regularization of his service has been rejected. It is not in dispute that the appellant, who had been working on daily wage basis as Mali, was disengaged as far back as in the year 1985. He, thereafter, along with other persons, approached this Court, in the year 2012, by filing C.W.J.C. No. 10494 of 2012, which was disposed of, on 19.07.2012, with a direction to consider their cases for regularization. Upon rejection of his claim for regularization, by an order, dated 11.02.2013, passed by the Superintending Engineer, South Bihar Circle, Patna, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 13498 of 2013, which came to be dismissed by the impugned

Patna High Court LPA No.1553 of 2014 (6) dt.13-01-2015 3/3 order, dated 09.05.2014, passed by the learned single Judge. In view of undisputed fact that the appellant was disengaged in the year 1985 itself and since then, he never worked as daily wage employee, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order under appeal.

This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(I. A. Ansari, J) (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U