Patna High CourtL.P.A/1407/2014dismissed

Sri Braj Kishore Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-13Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1407 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19895 of 2012 =========================================================== Sri Braj Kishore Prasad Singh Son of Late Bikko Singh Resident of Village and P.O.- Ballipur, P.S.- Pipariya, District - Lakhisarai, Bihar .... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai

4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.

5. The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur.

6. The Principal, Pratappur High School, Munger. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, AC to GA-1 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 13-01-2016 The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State, and with their consent, heard the appeal on merits.

Having considered the matter and heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere. The learned Single Judge has clearly noted that while claiming the relief for payment of salary for certain

Patna High Court LPA No.1407 of 2014 dt.13-01-2016 periods in the writ petition, the writ petitioner/appellant did not mention that for the said relief he had raised a claim before the departmental authorities and finding the claim to be fictitious, a departmental proceeding had been initiated, in which, it was found that the claim was based upon forged documents and writ petitioner/appellant was not entitled to those payments. Those relevant and major facts were not pleaded in the writ petition. It was brought on record in the counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to interfere in the matter. We see no reason to take a different view in the matter. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajeev/A.F.R.