Patna High CourtC. REV./397/2013dismissed

Indra Narayan Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-28Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.397 of 2013 In 15 10020 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Indra Narayan Chaudhary S/O Late Kalikant Chaudhary Resident Of Village- Raje (Goth),P.S- Manigachchi, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director- In- Chief, Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Civil Surgeon, Madhubani.

5. The District Maleria Officer, Madhubani.

6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha For the State : Mr. Rajeev Shekhar Ac to GP-24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the present case the limited grievance has been raised that the court has not granted any relief with regard to payment of salary for the period of 01.10.1986 to 30.11.1989 and submits that it requires a review of the order dated 30.07.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10020 of 2013.

On perusal of the order under review, it appears that the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the aforesaid

Patna High Court C. REV. No.397 of 2013 (3) dt.28-03-2016 2/2 period has been rejected on ground of delay that can not be a subject matter of review, this court can only exercise the power of review with regard to cases which falls within four corners of order 47 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as the every court has jurisdiction to decide the issue one way or other. It appears that the petitioner could not make out a case of apparent error on the case of record.

In such view of the matter, this court does not find any merit in the application. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The petitioner, if so advised, may challenge the order of writ court in letters patent appeal.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) siddharth/- U