Patna High CourtL.P.A/1577/2013dismissed

Arun Kumar Arun v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-03-08Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1577 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15082 of 2006 =========================================================== Arun Kumar Arun Son Of Awadhesh Kumar Verma Resident Of VillageChakrasul Dilawarpur, P.O.- Pratap Tand, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali .... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Secretary, Finance and Administrative Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

3. The Managing Director, Bihar Electronic Development Corporation Ltd. Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna- 23

4. The General Manager, Bihar Electronic Development Corporation Ltd. Beltron Bhawan Shastrinagar, Patna- 23

5. The Administrative Officer, Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd., Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. K.P. Gupta, GP-10 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 08-03-2017 Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents.

The appeal is dismissed because there is no legal infirmity in the reasoning given by the learned single Judge in refusing to give any direction for claim of regularization. Even according to the pleadings, the appellant was hired on a fixed remuneration for Rs.700/- for a fixed period of six months for imparting training. It was not a case of a daily wager who was

Patna High Court LPA No.1577 of 2013 dt.08-03-2017 2/2 hired against a sanctioned vacant post and he was made to work for an indefinite period. The principle, which was envisaged and considered in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi(3), reported in 2006 (2) PLJR (SC) 363, do not come to the rescue of the appellant. The dismissal of the writ application in view of the above was totally justified and no interference is required with the order of the learned single Judge.

Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) Pawan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 09.03.2017 Transmission Date N/A