Patna High CourtCWJC/9787/2015withdrawn

Lal Bahadur Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-07-08Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9787 of 2015 ====================================================== Lal Bahadur Ram, son of late Haridwar Ram, resident of Village- Sareya, P.O. and P.S.- Kochas, District- Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad

5. The District Programme Officer, Aurangabad.

6. The Chid Development Project Officer, Dev, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sri Krishna Ranjan, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S.Raza Ahmad, AAG 9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 08-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:

"1...... commanding and directing the concerned authority for granting the same benefit as granted to other employees including Navin Kumar in terms of judicial order dated 07.08.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15517/2008 affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 172 of 2010 on 22.09.2014 holding that the respondents are duty bound to ensure equality of treatment and benefits were extended and as such order under memo no. 108 dated 13.09.2011 passed by C.D.P.O., Dev. Aurangabad relieving for purpose of repatriation was not in consonance with law or abinito void as well as overreaching upon judicial verdict as well as further prayer to direct the concerned authorities to treat him in service upto 60 years as per service conditions applicable to the Government employees with all

Patna High Court CWJC No.9787 of 2015 (2) dt.08-07-2015 2/2 consequential benefits...."

3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ application in order to enable the petitioner to press his pending representation, as contained in Annexure-9.

4. This writ application is permitted to be withdrawn but it is made clear that the petitioner shall have now no liberty to move this Court for the same cause of action. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U