Patna High CourtCWJC/7353/2015withdrawn

Kumar Ram Prakash And ORS v. The Union Of India And ORS

2015-05-11Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7353 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Kumar Ram Prakash son of Bijay Kumar Rai, r/o village + P.O. Bagar, P.S. Sikra Distt.- Bhojpur (Ara).

2. Abhaya Nand Sons of Late Gupteshwar Sharma r/o village P.O. Bagar P.S. Shikhrata Dist. Bhojpur (Ara).

3. Munna Kumar son of Krishna Kumar Ray r/o village + P.O. Bagar P.S. Shikhrata Dist. Bhojpur (Ara)

4. Bhola Kumar son of Triveni Ray, resident of Village- Bagar Post BAgar, P.S.- Shikrahatta District- Bhojpur (Ara).

5. Rohit Kumar Ray son of Murali Manohar Ray Petitioner No. 4 and 5 are r/o village + P.O. Bagar P.S. Shikrahatta District- Bhojpur (Ara). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Postmaster General, Bihar Circle Patna.

2. The Director (E&DE) Department of Posts Dark Bhagwan New Delhi 110116

3. The Assistant Director General (D.E) Department of Posts Dark Bhagwan New Delhi 110116, Govt. Of India.

4. The C M C New Delhi

5. The Chief Postmaster General Jharkhand circle Meghdut Bhawan.

6. The Assistant Director, Postal Services (P) C.P-G. Jharkhand Circle Ranchi.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar (ASG) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 11-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have a grievance with regard to appointment on the post of Postman, this writ application seems to be ill advised and misconceived because the post of the Postman being under the service of Central

Patna High Court CWJC No.7353 of 2015 (2) dt.11-05-2015 2/2 Government, the petitioners have to move the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. With such an observation has been made, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this writ application in order to enable the petitioners to move the competent bench of the Tribunal.

4. That being so, this writ application is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforementioned liberty.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U