Vimal Kant Jha v. The High Court Of Judicature At Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22033 of 2014 =========================================================== Vimal Kant Jha, Son of Late Tarkeshwar Jha, resident of Village - Pinda Ruch, P.O. Pinda Ruch, P.S. - Kamtaul, District - Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through the Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna.

2. The Registrar Administration, Patna High Court, Patna.

3. The Court Officer, Patna High Court, Patna.

4. The Law Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The A.R. (Accounts) Patna High Court, Patna.

6. The Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate For the A.G. Bihar :

Mr. Satyendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the High Court :

Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Initially, the Court had directed the matter to be listed after disposal of L.P.A. No. 377 of 2016. As of now, the said L.P.A. stands dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced before the Court web copy of the order and judgment dated 03.02.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12 of 2015 in the case of Mahesh Mahto vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors. by which similar relief sought by a similarly situated person has been rejected. It was submitted that the order has attained

Patna High Court CWJC No.22033 of 2014 dt.01-11-2018 2/2 finality as no appeal has been preferred against the same. Learned counsel submitted that another similarly situated employee namely, Amir Hassan vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors. had filed C.W.J.C. No. 2697 of 2015, which was also dismissed and against which he preferred L.P.A. No. 377 of 2016, which also, as of now stands dismissed by order dated 25.04.2018.

4. Having considered the matter, in view of the fact that a co-ordinate Bench has dealt with the matter in detail on merits, the Court, upon going through the same finds no occasion to take a different view of what has been decided in the case of Mahesh Mahto (supra) and Amir Hassan (supra).

5. Accordingly, adopting the reasoning in the judgment and order dated 03.02.2015, in the case of Mahesh Mahto (supra), the present writ petition also stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U