Ranvijay Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna Through Its General Manager And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.414 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2024 of 2015 ====================================================== Ranvijay Singh S/o Late Ram Sevak Singh Resident of Gewal Bigha, Munni Masjid, Devi Asthan, P.S. Rampur, P.O. - G.P.O., District Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its General Manager.

2. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Private State Electricity Board, Bihar, Patna.

3. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. Patna through its M.D.

4. The Deputy Manager Cum Chief Electrical Superintending Engineer Magadh Electric Supply Area Gaya, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.

5. Deputy General Manager Human Resources South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. Patna.

6. The Electrical Executive Engineer M.R.T. Division. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dharmendra Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-01-2019 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this restoration petition.

Learned counsel for the State is present.

It appears from the records that the case was dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.03.2015.

A bench of this Court, while dismissing the petition, recorded that no right had accrued to the petitioner to claim any amount by way of traveling allowance as his engagement after his retirement as Head Electrician was not permitted by the Head Office of the company. However, since the counsel for the

Patna High Court MJC No.414 of 2017(2) dt.02-01-2019 2/2 petitioner was not present and the aforesaid observation was made by the bench on the basis of the records of the case as well as the submission made on behalf of the respondents, the court did not dismiss the petition on merits but only for non-prosecution of the petition. Today also, as has been observed earlier, nobody has appeared to press this petition.

In the result, this Court finds no good ground to restore the aforesaid writ petition viz. C.W.J.C. No. 2024 of 2015.

The restoration petition is thus dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- U