← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/18781/2015disposed

Dinesh Mistri v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-12-10Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18781 of 2015 ====================================================== Dinesh Mistri, Son of Late Jitu Mistry, Resident of Village- Erka, P.S.- Amba, District- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Aurangabad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sc14- Dr. Anshuman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the present case, the petitioner is claiming that he has been working in the Minor Irrigation Department at Aurangabad as Daily Wage Employee, but he has not been regularized in service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 30.07.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19348 of 2015 (Purshotam Dwivedi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), judgment and order dated 14.08.2018 passed in C.WJ.C. No. 18376 of 2015 (Ghura Paswan & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and judgment and order dated 13.09.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18781 of 2015(2) dt.10-12-2018 2/2 17643 of 2015 (Mohan Paswan & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).

In such view of the matter, let the respondent authority examine the case of the present petitioner vis-a-vis the case of the petitioners of aforesaid cases and if it is found that the facts, prayer and law of cases are identical, in such circumstance, the present petitioner will be given the same benefit as has been given to the petitioners of the aforesaid cases within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

However, it is made clear that this Court is not formed/expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) V.K.Pandey/ Sunny U