Pankaj Kumar Roy And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12109 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Pankaj Kumar Roy, Son of late Laxmi Roy, resident of Rajendra Nagar Madhubani, P.O.-Madhubani, P.S.-K.Hat, District Purnea, presently working as Junior Accounts Clerk in Works Division, Kishanganj - 2, Rural Works Department, Bihar.

2. Sanjay Prasad, Son of late Ashwani Kumar Verma, resident of Mohalla-Sudin Chowk, Tatma Toli, P.S. - Maranga, DistrictPurnea, presently working as Junior Accounts Clerk in Works Division, Kishanganj- 1, Rual Works Department, Bihar. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

6. The Chief Engineer-2, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

7. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Kisanganj.

8. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Purnea.

9. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Kisanganj - 1.

10. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Kisanganj - 2.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ajay - GA-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-12-2018 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is squarely covered by the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.19392 of 2016 (Raj Kumar and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.).

Patna High Court CWJC No.12109 of 2017(3) dt.10-12-2018 2/2 In such view of the matter, let the respondent authorities examine the case of the present petitioners vis-a-vis the case of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.19392 of 2016 and if it is found that the facts, prayer and law of both the cases are identical, in such circumstance, the present petitioners will be given the same benefit as has been given to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.19392 of 2016.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

It is clarified that this Court is not giving any opinion on the merit of the case.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U