Patna High CourtMJC/2593/2014disposed

Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-07-01The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2593 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11893 of 2006 ====================================================== Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Son of Late Vishnu Prasad Yadav, resident of village- Bikky Col, P.O.- Bikat, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna, namely Sri. D.K. Singh.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna, namely Sri D.K. Singh.

3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Bihar, Patna namely Sri B.A. Khan.

4. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Bhagalpur, namely Sri A.K. Pandey.

5. The District Forest Extension Division, Purnea, namely Sri. B.N. Prasad.

6. The Conservator of Forest, Purnea, namely Sri S.K. Thakur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Monika, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 01-07-2017 While disposing of the writ petition on 22nd January, 2007, respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in accordance to the law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and take a decision. From the show cause filed by the respondents and the orders Annexure-A series filed therewith, it is seen that after scrutiny of the matter for the reasons as are indicated therein, the

Patna High Court MJC No.2593 of 2014 (3) dt.01-07-2017 2/2 claim of the petitioner has been rejected finding him ineligible for regularisation.

That being so, no further indulgence in this contempt proceedings is called for. In case, the petitioner feels that the consideration has not been made properly or the claim has been rejected on improper consideration, liberty shall be available to the petitioner to challenge the same afresh in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, for the present, finding no indulgence made into the matter, the application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) U Sunil/-