← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/15373/2014dismissed

Ram Bachan Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-12-05Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15373 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Ram Bachan Ram Son of Late Jangi Ram Resident of Village- Gegarhi, Police Station- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Kaimur ( Bhabhua)

4. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas.

5. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhabhua at Kaimur

6. The Block Development Officer cum- Inquiry Officer, Chand, DistrictKaimur. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Tiwari For the Respondent/s : Mr. Purnendu Singh Gp-27 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The following reliefs have been sought for on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ application:- (i) "For setting aside the order bearing Memo No.3085 dated 19.07.1991, whereby and whereunder the District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas has awarded major punishment to the petitioner depriving him of three increments of salary without providing him any opportunity and without drawing any disciplinary proceeding and allowing him merely subsistence allowance for the suspension period.

(ii) To grant other consequential benefits to the petitioner after the impugned order vide Annexure- is set aside."

Patna High Court CWJC No.15373 of 2014 (2) dt.05-12-2017 2/2 The order under challenge is order dated 19.07.1991. Against the said order, earlier also the petitioner had filed a writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No.4686 of 1997. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.07.1998 vide Annexure-6 was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the representation of the petitioner.

Since the order under challenge in both the writ applications is same, the present writ application is not maintainable. The same is dismissed.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Amit/- U