Patna High CourtCWJC/5849/2011disposed

Vinay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-10-18Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5849 of 2011 ====================================================== Vinay Kumar, son of Late Dula Singh, resident of village- Miralipur, P.O. Gokhle Nagar, Bishanpur, P.S. Balia, District-Begusarai .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Building Construction and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

3. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Additional Commissioner, Building Construction and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vishwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

4. The Superintending Engineer, Purnea Region, Building Construction and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Purnea

5. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Khagaria Division, Khagaria .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-10-2016 Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG-4.

The petitioner had approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash an order dated 24.01.2011 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Bhawan Anchal, Purnea (Respondent no.4). By the said order, the claim of the petitioner along with others for regularization of their services was rejected. However, during pendency of the writ petition, it was accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner that services of the petitioner has already been regularized. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

Patna High Court CWJC No.5849 of 2011 (5) dt.18-10-2016 2/2 regularization has not been done with retrospective effect, but it has been done from the date of issuance of order, and as such, he makes a prayer for disposal of the present writ petition, so that the petitioner may avail appropriate remedy in respect of prayer for regularization with retrospective effect.

The prayer is allowed.

The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty as indicated above.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U