Ram Kripal Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15550 of 2010 ====================================================== Ram Kripal Singh S/O Late Ashirvad Singh R/O Vill Mirpur Pataudh, P.S.Sarai, Distt-Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Secretary, Home Special Department Government Of Bihar, Patna

3. The Commissioner Tirhut Division, At Muzaffarpur

4. The District Magistrate Vaishali At Hajipur

5. The Superintendent Of Police Vaishali At Hajipur

6. The Officer Incharge Sarai P.S., Distt-Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Sriwastava For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc20) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 18-06-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Vaishali whereby and whereunder the case of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.

It is apparent from the impugned order dated 26.08.2009 that no record with regard to either the petitioner having been found to be working as Dafadar/ Chaukidar has been found, much less no proof of any payment/ remuneration having been paid to the petitioner was found, as such neither there is any proof of the petitioner having been found to be working nor the petitioner had produced any order with regard to his appointment. In the writ petition a bald statement has merely been

Patna High Court CWJC No.15550 of 2010 (4) dt.18-06-2018 2/2 made that the petitioner has been engaged as Dafadar in the year 1984 by the then Officer-in-charge of Sarai Police Station and was allowed to work as Dafadar from time to time. It is apparent from a bare perusal of the writ petition that no order of appointment has been annexed to the writ petition, moreover no proof for payment of remuneration has been brought on record.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 26.08.2009 cannot be faulted with especially in view of the fact that neither any proof has been produced by the petitioner regarding him having continuously worked as Dafadar/ Chaukidar from the year 1984 nor any proof has been produced with regard to payment of remuneration/ salary to him nor any order of appointment has been brought on record by the petitioner herein.

For the reasons mentioned here-in-above, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) BTiwary/- U