Rajeshwar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5047 of 2014 ====================================================== Rajeshwar Prasad Son Of Ramdewan Singh Resident Of Village - Khaprail Chak, P.S. Parsa Bazar, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Public Health And Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

2. The Joint Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

3. The Engineer - In - Chief Cum Special Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

4. The Chief Engineer ( Mechanical ), Public Health And Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

5. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

6. The Officer On Special Duty, Public Health And Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Gopal Krishna, AC to GA 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner has approached this Court for claiming regularization on account of his working on daily wage/work charge post since 1998.

Learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of the Court towards letter dated 27.1.2014 (Annexure F to the counter affidavit) and submitted that the petitioner's claim has not been found fit for the benefit of regularization since under the policy decision he was disqualified on the ground of his

Patna High Court CWJC No.5047 of 2014 (4) dt.02-08-2018 2/2 long absence from the work without information and as he was an accused in a criminal case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents with reference to order contained in Annexure F whereby his claim for regularization has been rejected under order dated 27.1.2014. He seeks liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceeding.

The writ petition is dismissed with the liberty aforesaid.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi.

U