Dr. Laxmi Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.218 of 2023 ====================================================== Dr. Laxmi Prasad Yadav Son of Dani Lal Yadav, Resident of Ward No. 21, Navaratan Hata, P.S.- Purnea, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director-in-Chief Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Joint Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Regional Deputy Director, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 5.

The Regional Deputy Director, Purnea Division, Purnea. 6.

The Civil Surgeon, Purnea, District- Purnea.

7.

The Civil Surgeon, Saharsa, District- Saharsa. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate Ms. Tatva Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, AC to SC-23 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 27-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner in this case is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of his salary after accepting his joining at the transferred place.

The writ application makes startling revelation. This petitioner has not worked since the year 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to show from the statement made in the writ application any specific averment saying that the petitioner had been working at his transferred place since the year 2005. Learned counsel has made

Patna High Court CWJC No.218 of 2023(3) dt.27-02-2023 2/2 categorical statement at the bar that there is no such statement in the writ application. His only bald plea is that the petitioner was not allowed to join at the transferred place.

This Court has been informed at this stage that the petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of his prolonged unauthorized absence from work.

As learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to disclose as to whether the petitioner was indulged in private practice and had been making money during all this period which may even be subjected to enquiry by a competent investigating agency, learned counsel for the petitioner has, on his own volition, come out with a prayer to allow him to withdraw this application unconditionally. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed this writ application stating that it is totally dishonest approach on the part of the petitioner in looking for his salary for 17-18 years from the State Exchequer when admittedly he has not rendered any service.

In the given circumstance, since learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ application unconditionally, permission is granted.

The application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) lekhi/- U