Uday Prasad And ORS v. The State Of Bihar Through Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, Presently Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3294 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9441 of 2016 ======================================================
1. Uday Prasad, Son of Late Sita Ram Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Mansoorganj, Patna City, PO Begumpur, PS Malsalami, District Patna.
2. Lawlesh Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Brijnandan Prasad, Resident of Village- Mahawar, PO+PS- Daud Nagar, District Aurangabad.
3. Arjun Pandit, Son of Late Kali Pandit, Resident of Village and PO Keur Bazar, PS Hulasganj, District Jahanabad.
4. Bikrama Prasad, Son of Late Jag Narayan Prasad, Resident of Village Bhusaula, PO & PS Darihat, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
5. Joga Singh, Son of Lalu Singh, Resident of Village and PO Urdina, PS Barun District Aurangabad.
6. Sri Ram Prasad, Son of Late Narayan Prasad, Resident of Village New Sidhauli, Narayan Tola, PO & PS Dalmia Nagar, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner, Presently Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Sri Vinay Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Sri Shankar Prasad Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Secretary-cum-Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Sri Ram Sagar Choudhary, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, work circle, Aurangabad.
5. Sri Umesh Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Aurangabad.
6. District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, AC to AAG 6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 11-07-2018 Heard Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.6 for the State.
Patna High Court MJC No.3294 of 2017 (4) dt.11-07-2018 The six petitioners herein came before this Court seeking regularization of their services. This Court noted the accompanying facts as well as the eligibility of these petitioners for regularization under the circular dated 16.03.2006 and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the observation made and dispose it of by a speaking order. Since the order was not complied, hence the contempt application.
A show cause is filed today on behalf of opposite party No.6 i.e. the District Magistrate, Aurangabad who was added as party to the present proceedings and who while enclosing a copy of the proceeding dated 06.07.2018 of the District Level Selection Committee chaired by himself, informs that the claim of the petitioners for regularization has been upheld and they have been recommended for regularization which decision of the Committee is circulated vide Memo No.116 dated 7.7.2018. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.6 assures that once the Committee has upheld the claim of the petitioners for regularization and has recommended as such, the consequential actions would be taken by the concerned authority expeditiously.
Patna High Court MJC No.3294 of 2017 (4) dt.11-07-2018 Learned counsel for the petitioners expresses apprehensions as to the follow up steps to be taken up by the authority concerned and thus prays for a time frame for conclusion of the exercise.
Having noted the decision of the Committee chaired by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad dated 07.07.2018 upholding the claim of the petitioners for regularization and that recommendations have been made for issuance of consequential orders of regularisation, let the exercise be completed expeditiously and preferably within three weeks from today. With the observation above, contempt application is disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/Anjula U