Ajay Kumar Rai vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 314 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10574 of 2020
     ======================================================

Ajay Kumar Rai Son of Shatrughna Prasad Rai Resident of Village- Khairatiya Balua, P.S.- Nawalpur, Dist.- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Engineer in Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Muzaffarpur.

5. The Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Circle, Motihari, Dist.- East Champaran.

6. The Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Division, Bettiah, Dist.-

West Champaran.

7. The Sub Divisional Officer Public Health Sub Division, Bettiah, Dist.- West Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 11-01-2022

The matter is heard via video conferencing due to

circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19

pandemic.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following reliefs:-

"1. That this is an application for grant of an appropriate writ for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the Class IV post earlier held by him in work charge establishment of Public Health Patna High Court CWJC No.10574 of 2020 dt.11-01-2022

Engineering Department and to regularize him in regular establishment of the Department with effect from the date of his termination (31/12/2001) with all the consequential benefits including continuity of service ion the concerned department."

3. In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the

validity of his termination, as he is not in service as on this date.

The termination is dated 13.12.2001/13.05.2002.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he

had approached this Court earlier. At the same time, the same was

not pointed out. The order of termination was set aside and

directed the concerned respondent for reinstatement, if it is so,

question of interference to termination order is not warranted.

5. If the orders passed by this Court was in the favour

of petitioner, he has remedy of filing contempt of Court

proceeding.

6. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has

not made out a case. Accordingly, the instant petition stands

dismissed.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

rakhi/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date