Dudheshwar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.953 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9285 of 2014 ====================================================== Dudheshwar Yadav, S/o Late Nawab Yadav, resident of Village- Paharpur, Post Office- Taranagar, P.S.- Bihta, Dist- Patna. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

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

3. The Joint Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna.

5. The District Education Officer, Patna.

6. The Headmaster, Jagdeo Prasad (10+2) High School, Dihuli, Patna.

7. The Accountant General of Bihar, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Madan Prasad Singh No-2, Advocate :

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, AC to AAG-15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 03-10-2018 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.05.2017 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9285 of 2014 in so far as not considering at all the relief prayed by the original writ petitioner with respect to the annual increments of 2011 and 2012, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the prayers sought in

Patna High Court LPA No.953 of 2017(5) dt.03-10-2018 2/2 the main writ petition, more particularly, with respect to paragraph 1(iv), it appears that the original writ petitioner also prayed for an appropriate order directing the respondents to add annual increments of 2011 and 2012 in the salary. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Single Judge has not at all considered the said prayer.

Under the circumstances, we remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge to consider the prayer in terms of paragraph 1(iv), namely, to add annual increments of 2011 and 2012 and the learned Single Judge to consider the said prayer in accordance with law and on its own merits.

With this, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of.

(Mukesh R. Shah, CJ) (Ashutosh Kumar, J) Sunil/-s.shukla U