Patna High CourtCWJC/22332/2014disposed

Suresh Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-10-08Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22332 of 2014 ====================================================== Suresh Prasad Singh son of Rameshwar Singh Resident of village - Khalil Chauk, P.O. Matil Chauk, P.S. Barbhgha, District - Sheikhpura ( Bihar ) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Development, Bihar, Patna

2. Chief Engineer, Koshi Division, Purnea

3. The Superintending Engineer, Mahananda Flood Control Circle, Katihar

4. The Executive Engineer, Mahananda Flood Control Circle, Katihar

5. The Treasury Officer, Katihar

6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Mr. Raj Narayan Mishra and Ms. K. Shana For the State :

Mr. Rajiv Roy, GP 1 Mr. Suresh Kumar, AC to GP 1 For Accountant General : Mr. Satyendra Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 08-10-2018 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent State.

The limited grievance of the petitioner is that treating 21.10.1984 as being the cut off date his claim for regularisation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 16.1.2013. He submits that he was entitled to consideration as per resolution No. 639 dated 16.3.2006 since the cut off date had been extended to 11.12.1990. Relying upon declaration of the law in Ashok Kumar Sharma & ors. Vs. State of Bihar, 2016(1) PLJR 232, Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be making a fresh application for consideration of his claim by treating the cut off date 11.3.1990.

Patna High Court CWJC No.22332 of 2014(2) dt.08-10-2018 2/2 Without expressing any opinion on the merit of this submission, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner would be, however, at liberty to agitate his claim on the basis of Division Bench judgment as stated hereinabove. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) SNkumar/- U