Patna High CourtMJC/4346/2013disposed

Ashok Kumar Sharma And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-08-06Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4346 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 389 of 2009 ======================================================

1. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Uma Kant Sharma Resident Of VillageBishwspur, P.O- Chiraiya, P.S- Amarpur, District- Banka,

2. Prabhat Kumar S/O Late Beni Madhav Prasad Resident Of VillageRupwara, P.O- Bibhutiput, Distt- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Mr. Rajiv Lochan, The Deputy Secretary, Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department (Now General Administration Department), Government Of Bihar, Patna.

3. Mr. Dr. Amitabh Ghos, The Director Science And Technology, Bihar, Patna.

4. Mr. Amita Paul, The Principal Secretary, Science And Technology Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Amir Sohani, The Secretary Personnel And Administration Reforms Department (Now General Administration), Government Of Bihar, Patna.

6. Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

7. Mr. Kumar Surendra, The Principal, Muzaffarpur Institute Of Technology.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajindra Pd. Singh : Mr. Ravi Kr. Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dinesh Maharaj ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 06-08-2018 Admittedly, the order dated 24.06.2011 passed in CWJC no. 389 of 2009 appears to have been complied with by passing of the order dated 30.07.2018 by the Director, Science and Technology, Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder, the services of the petitioner has been regularized w.e.f. 24.06.2011.

Patna High Court MJC No.4346 of 2013 (7) dt.06-08-2018 2/2 The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that there may be two issues which require further adjudication i.e. the date on which the petitioner has been regularized as also the consequential benefits. In view of the aforesaid, the present contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 30.07.2018, if so advised.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U