Kaushal Kishore Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2217 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3979 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

Kaushal Kishore Singh Son of Rajendra Prasad Singh NY-118/D, New Yarpur, Janta Road Jhunjhun Mahal, Proffessor Colony Patna. 2.

Prem Chand Roy Son of Late Deep Narayan Resident of Mohalla Saristabad, East Tola, P.S. Gardhanibagh District at Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Mr. Trupurari Sharan Principle Secretary, Industry Department Government of Bihar Patna.

3.

Mr. Rabinder Prasad Director, Technical Development Directorate Industry Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh Director, Directorate Industry Department, Bihar Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Dayal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Subhash Prasad Singh (Ga3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-02-2020 The petitioners were directed vide order dated 11.03.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3979 of 2018 and C.W.J.C. No. 3992 of 2018 to make suitable representation before the Director, Directorate of Industries Department, Government of Bihar, Patna for regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment within a further period of four weeks, which representation was directed to be disposed of by a reasoned order within a period of six weeks thereafter.

Patna High Court MJC No.2217 of 2019 dt.05-02-2020 2/2 It appears that the representation of the petitioners has been rejected by order dated 04.10.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a flimsy distinction has been made between the cases of the petitioners and others who were given the benefit of regularization from the date of their initial appointment. The aforesaid decision of the Government could be challenged in a fresh proceeding.

Since an order of this Court was to dispose of the representation of the petitioner if filed within a specified period, that having been done, no contempt now arises. The contempt petition is thus consigned.

The petitioners have the liberty to challenge the aforesaid order in an appropriate proceeding. (Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.02.2020 Transmission Date