Disposed

Arun Kumar Mishra v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC10 Feb 2009CWJC/8211/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his reversion from work charged status to daily wage employee. The Court referred the merits of the alleged illegality to a Committee constituted by the State Government instead of adjudicating directly.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was disposed of with a direction for the State to constitute a Committee to examine the claim within six months.

Arun Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
 CWJC No.8211 of 2002
 ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
 Versus
 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
 -----------

¶2

For the Petitioner : Mr Ajey kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr Mayank Rukhaiyar, Assistant
 Counsel to G.A. 5.
-------

¶3

10.02.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

¶4

On 23.7.2002 this case was directed to be placed after disposal of CWJC No. 6043 of 2002. The latter has been disposed by a judgement reported in 2006 (3) PLJR 376 (Ram Tapeshwar Sah & ors. Vs The State of Bihar & ors.), in which the matter has been referred by the High Court to be examined by a Committee to be constituted by the respondent State Government. Counsel for the State submits that the Committee has been constituted and the necessary issues are being examined by the Committee.

¶5

The petitioner is aggrieved by his reversion from the work charged status where he claims to have worked for approximately 14 years to his original status of daily wage

¶6

employee.

¶7

The contention of the respondents is that his promotion to the post of work charged employee was contrary to the government rules and regulations.

¶8

These are aspects which can appropriately be examined by the Committee constituted by the Government itself.

¶9

In that view of the matter, the writ application is disposed with the direction that the claim of the petitioner with regard to

¶10

the alleged illegality of his reversion has to be decided by the Committee within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order.

¶11

The Court expects that suitable appropriate consequential order with regard to the petitioner shall then be made by the Committee and that depending on the final report of the Committee there may be no need for the petitioner to approach this Court again.

¶12

Snkumar/-

¶13

(Navin Sinha,J.)

Arun Kumar Mishra v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Mishra v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj Jha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anita Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Madhu Kant Ranjan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Jugal Kishore Sharma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shiv Nath Bidyarthi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Verma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.