Guddu Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9607 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Guddu Kumar, son of Ram Naresh Choudhary, resident of village+P.O. Balha, P.S. Chak Maheshi, District-Samastipur

2. Smita Rani Kumari, wife of Rajesh Kumar, resident of village+P.O.Bandra, P.S.-Piar, District-Muzaffarpur

3. Sanju Kumari, wife of Vijay Kumar Sahni, resident of village-Simra, P.OSrikant, P.s.-Piar, District-Muzaffarpur

4. Kumari Pooja, wife of Surendra Kumar, resident of village+P.O. Dilkhi Gajpati, P.S. Sakra, District-Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur

3. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Muzaffarpur

5. the Block Education Officer, Bandra, Muzaffarpur

6. The Member Secretary-cum-Grame Panchayat Secretary, Patsara BlockBandra, Muzaffarpur

7. The Member Secretary-cum-Gram Panchayat Secretary, Sundarpur Ratwar, Block-Bandra, Muzaffarpur

8. The Member Secretary-cum-Gram Panchayat Secretary, Mutlupur BlockMinapur, Muzaffarpur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S.C.Mishra -Sc16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 15-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Mr. Amish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is covered by the decision of the Division Bench passed in LPA No. 501 of 2017 dated 14.11.2017.

Counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert the above fact.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9607 of 2018(2) dt.15-05-2018 2/2 In view of the decision of the Division Bench passed in LPA No. 501 of 2017 dated 14.11.2017, the writ application is disposed of with similar terms and direction to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law after reinstating the petitioners.

It is made clear that for the intervening period no salary will be paid to the petitioners. The salary of the petitioners would depend upon the final outcome of the enquiry conducted by the respondents so far it relates to the petitioners. In view of the above, the writ application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U