Patna High CourtCWJC/2464/2017disposed

Mahangu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-08-14Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2464 of 2017 ====================================================== Mahangu Yadav, Son of Late Navlakh Yadav, Resident of Village- Garauti P.O.- Naharighar, P.S.- Nawanagar, District- Bhojpur (Arrah), At present Posted as Peon in the office of Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division No.- 2, Barhat, District- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. Under Secretary, Water Resources Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur.

4. Chief Engineer, Sichai Srijan Water Resources Department, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur.

5. District Magistrate Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur.

6. Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Division Circle Kharagpur.

7. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.- 1, Laxmipur, Jamui.

8. Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division No.-2 Bharat Jamui. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh- GA-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 14-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the body of the writ petition. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in refusing to regularize the service, in consequence, the petitioner has been terminated from the service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.2464 of 2017(3) dt.14-08-2018 2/2 facts and issue involved in this case is identical to the case of C.W.J.C. No.2138 of 2017, so this case may also be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition. In such view of the matter, let the authority examine the case of the petitioner and if it is found that his case is identical to the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.2138 of 2017, in such circumstance, the petitioner will be given the same benefit as has been given to the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.2138 of 2017. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U