Surya Mohan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21981 of 2011 ====================================================== SURYA MOHAN S/O Late Narsinha Das R/O-B/108, Prince Apartment, Magistrate Colony, Ashiyana Nagar, P.S.-Rajeev Nagar, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Energy, Government of Bihar.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Energy, Government of Bihar-Cum-Chairman, the Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, Beerchand Patel Marg, Patna - 800001.

3.

The Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, Beerchand Patel Marge, Patna-800001 through its Managing Director. 4.

The Managing Director The Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, Beerchand Patel Marg, Patna - 800001. 5.

Director, Personal And Administration, The Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan, Beerchand Patel Marg, Patna - 800001. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Archana Shahi, Advocate Mr.Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Mahtab Alam, AC to SC-20 For the BSHPCL :

Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 20-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Bihar State Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by respondent no. 3 by which the petitioner has been discharged from his engagement on contract basis after completion of the period of contractual appointment.

Patna High Court CWJC No.21981 of 2011(3) dt.20-02-2023 2/2 This petitioner is a retired person, who, after his retirement, got engaged on contractual basis vide order contained in Memo No. 3902 dated 30.10.2008. He has continued till extended period up to 30.06.2011. By the impugned order, he has only been communicated that on completion of the extended contractual period his engagement will come to an end.

This Court finds no reason as to how the petitioner can maintain a writ application against such communication. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U