Sonelal And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1053 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2125 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Sonelal, Son of late Kishori Ram, Resident of Mohalla - Madhubani Bazar, Bajpatti, Police Station - Bajpatti, District - Sitamarhi.

2. Hardeo Poddar, Son of late Khublal Poddar, Resident of Mohalla - Hawai Adda, Katihar, Police Station - Mirchai Bari, District - Katihar.

3. Bhogendra Jha, Son of late Bishwanath Jha, Resident of Village - Ahmada, Police Station - Raj Nagar, District - Madhubani.

4. Gangesh Kumar Mishra, Son of late Shiv Shankar, Mishra, Resident of Village - Sagarpur, Police Station - Sakari, District - Madhubani.

5. Md. Mohsin, Son of late Sabai, Resident of Mohalla - Kasba Lakhana, Police Station - Kasba, District - Purnea. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Commissioner -cum- Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Chief Engineer, North Bihar Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Purnea.

5. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Purnea.

6. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Kishanganj.

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

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Birju Prasad, GP-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 03-08-2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that on the ground that after orders were passed on 5.9.2005,

Patna High Court LPA No.1053 of 2015 dt.03-08-2018 2/2 22.2.2006 and 23.2.2006, the petitioner has approached the Writ Court after ten years seeking regularization and benefit of computation of past service and as such, even if the claim is accepted, an issue which stood settled ten years ago cannot be reopened at the instance of the petitioner, the learned Writ Court has refused to entertain the claim.

In doing so, in our considered view, the learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting re-consideration. The appeal is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) K.C.Jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 07.08.2018 Transmission Date N/A