Patna High CourtMJC/4183/2013disposed

Bishnu Deo Prasad Mistry v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-04-20Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4183 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19392 of 2011 ====================================================== Bishnu Deo Prasad Mistry, Son of Late Murlidhar Mistry, Resident of Village - Purani Bazar Behind of Witanath Mahadeo, Tarapur, P.O. - Tarapur, P.S. - Tarapur, District - Munger .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sri Rambalak Thakur, the Deputy Secretary, Personal and Administrative , Government of Bihar, Patna

3. Sri Dr. Surendra Prasad, the Director Health Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

4. Sri Rameshwar Singh The Director Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

5. Sri Mahesh Prasad, Regional Deputy Director, Munger, District - Munger

6. Sri Jawahar Prasad Singh, the Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Munger, District - Munger

7. Sri Narendra Singh, District Magistrate, Munger, District - Munger

8. Dr. Bindu Kumari, the In-Charge Medical Officer, Tarapur, District - Munger .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishiraj Sinha ======================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-04-2016 The petitioner filed writ application, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 19392 of 2011, for a direction to the respondents to grant promotion for the post of vehicle driver (Special Category) in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- in the light of the notification dated 25.04.2007 issued by the Personal and Administrative Reforms Department. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to respondent no.6 to dispose of the representation.

Patna High Court MJC No.4183 of 2013 (3) dt.20-04-2016 2/2 A show-cause has been filed stating that the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of vide Memo No. 1785, dated 13.11.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification, dated 25.04.2007, has not been considered in its true spirit. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the same has already been taken into consideration. Having regard to the facts of the case, if the petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 13.11.2013, he would be at liberty to challenge the same.

This application stands disposed of.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) Uday/- U