Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.264 of 2015 ====================================================== Rohit Kumar Son of Late Shanker Lal, Resident of Village- Bhuski, P.S.- Khusrupur, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Bhojpur, Road Construction Department, Arrah

4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Buxar .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar,AC to GP 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 30-01-2018 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Counsel for the State, referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as the specific stand taken therein vide letter dated 19.11.2016 (Annexure R-4/H) issued by the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Bhojpur, Road Construction Department, Arrah (respondent no.3) as also letter dated 06.12.2016 (Annexure R4/I) issued by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Buxar (respondent no.4), submits that the matter relating to regularization of the deceased father of the petitioner has been recommended for final decision before respondent no.3 in December, 2016. However, counsel for the State is not in a position to inform the Court what has happened

Patna High Court CWJC No.264 of 2015 (6) dt.30-01-2018 on the said correspondence and what steps have been taken pursuant thereto by respondent no.3 in the matter. Let respondent no.3 take a final decision concluding the process of regularization initiated in favour of the petitioner's father in light of the aforesaid recommendation/correspondence referred to in the counter affidavit, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner, upon such decision of the authorities, would be entitled to the consequential benefits including consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment. The writ petition is thus disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi.

U