Patna High CourtMJC/6342/2012disposed

Raj Mangal Raut v. Mr. Navin Kumar And ORS.

2018-10-10Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.6342 of 2012 ====================================================== Raj Mangal Raut, son of Sri Deo Nandan Rau, resident of Village & P.O. - Punaura East Panchayat, P.S. - Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna.

2. Mr. Afjal Amanullah, the Principal Secretary-cum-the Industrial Development Commissioner, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Mr. Sailesh Thakur, the Director of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mallick, Director, Directorate of Technical Development, Vikas Bhawan, Bihar, Patna.

5. Mr. B.N. Prasad, the Managing Director, Bihar Export Corporation, Bhumi Vikash Band (3rd Floor), Budh Marg, Patna, Bihar.

6. Mr. Rameshwar Singh, the Commissioner, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar.

7. Mr. Ashok Kumar Chauhan, the Secretary, Department of Cabinet Vigilance, Government of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv. For the BSFC : Mr. Rajani Kant Mishra, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 10-10-2018 It appears from Annexure-A to the show cause issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary to the Department of Industry, Government of Bihar that in compliance of the order of this Court the retirement age of the employees of the Bihar State Export Corporation Ltd. has been enhanced from the age of 58 years to 60 years.

Learned counsel representing the Corporation submits that the age of retirement has already been enhanced as

Patna High Court MJC No.6342 of 2012 (10) dt.10-10-2018 per the direction of the Court and now the Corporation is bound to accept the age of retirement of the petitioner as 60 years. It is submitted that the petitioner should not have any apprehension as to this position.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this contempt application seems to have become infructuous. It is disposed off accordingly.

By virtue of enhancement of the age whatever be the implications legally, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim the same.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U