Sukhdeo Jee v. The Bihar State Electricity Bord And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.864 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1674 of 1998 ====================================================== Sukhdeo Jee Son of Late Dilip Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla- A.G. Colony, Main Road, Patna.

.... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, having its office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. The Member, Finance Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Having his office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

5. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant :

Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 01-08-2017 Heard counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited. The appellant has superannuated way back in the year 2009. The whole argument is on hypothesis that if he had qualified, he would have got promotion and, therefore, it would have begotten him a better retirement package. All this is based on hocus pocus kind of degrees and equivalent which the appellant has acquired. Keeping the same into consideration the

Patna High Court LPA No.864 of 2015 (10) dt.01-08-2017 2/2 learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ application on 6th February, 2015. There is absolutely no illegality with the decision against which the present appeal has been preferred. The adventurism shown on behalf of the counsel for the appellant and the enthusiasm is not supported by the fact or law.

Appeal is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Pawan/- U