Dr.Gokulesh Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19005 of 2010 ======================================================
1. Dr.Gokulesh Jha S/O Late Ramrekh Jha R/O Vill.-Nathudwar, Via Narhan (R.S.), P.S.-Khanpur, Distt.-Samastipur, Presently Residing At Qr.No. New C/24 Pusafarm Campus, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar Distt.-Samastipur-848125.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Agriculture Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Bihar, Patna.
3. The Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar Through Its Registrar, Having Its Headquarters At And Post Office Pusa, P.S. Pusa, Distt. Samastipur.
4. The Vice-Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar At And Post Office Pusa, P.S.-Pusa, Distt.-Samastipur.
5. The Director Of Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar At And Post Office Pusa, P.S.-Pusa, Distt.-Samastipur.
6. The University Grant Commission Through Its Secretary Bahadur Sah Jafar Marg New Delhi.
7. The Director General, Indian Council For Agricultural Research, Ministry Of Agricultural, Govt. Of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi110114.
8. The Deptt. Of Agricultural Research And Education (D.A.R.E.) Under Ministry Of Agricultural, Govt. Of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi110114. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 09-01-2015 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 (Rajendra Agricultural University) is present.
Writ application was filed seeking a direction for enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees of the University including the petitioner from 62 years to 65 years. At
Patna High Court CWJC No.19005 of 2010 (3) dt.09-01-2015 the time of filing of the writ application, the petitioner was aged about 62 years and he was made to retire w.e.f. 30.11.2010. Even if any relief is granted, the same would not inure to the benefit of the petitioner and that is probably the reason for non-appearance of the petitioner to prosecute the present writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U