Ram Naresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6842 of 2013 ===========================================================

1. Ram Naresh Singh S/O Ram Deo Singh At Er-141 Janta House, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S.- Agamkuan, Dist.-Patna- 800026 (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Secretary Deptt. Of Information Technology, Patna

2. The Secretary, Information Technology It Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna-800001

3. Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna-800023

4. Managing Director Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd., Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna-800023

5. Managing Director, Beltron Video Systems Ltd. Beltron Bhawan,Shastri Nagar, Patna-800023

6. The General Manager Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd., Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna-800023 .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y. N. Sahay, Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocates.

For the Beltron : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation. In the present writ petition, limited grievance has been raised by the petitioner that in view of the order dated 22.6.2010 where it has been directed to pay him Rs.8,000/- per month subject to adjustment on the payment of salary to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from 2014 he has been given full salary but during 2010-2014 he has been given only adhoc salarly of Rs.8,000/-. He further submits that he should be given salary from 22.6.2010 adjusting

Patna High Court CWJC No.6842 of 2013 dt.02-05-2016 Rs.8,000/-.

From letter dated 22.6.2010 it appears that petitioner and one another person Prem Nth Choudhary was directed to make up to date account of work of Beltron Video system. It is not in dispute that present petitioner is an employee of Video system not an employee of Beltron. Now in 2014 he has been brought in the deputation to the Beltron and he has been given scale of Rs.5500 to 9000 since 17th December, 2014. There is no grievance that petitioner is getting correct salary from 17th December, 2014. The aforesaid facts discloses that petitioner had worked for Video system and not Beltron and as such he cannot ask the Beltron to pay regular salary. This Court does not find any fault in the action of the Beltron. This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 19.5.2016 Transmission Date