Disposed

Nagendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Feb 2019CWJC/11369/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner is legally entitled to regularization benefits as juniors from the 2008 panel were regularized while his claim was ignored. The Court directed the respondents to consider his claim within three months, noting his undertaking not to claim seniority over those already regularized.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's claim for regularization of service as Plumbing Khalasi expeditiously within three months.

Nagendra Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11369 of 2016

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Nagendra Prasad son of Late Mukhan Prasad, Resident of Village- Bhagirathi, P.O. Semraon, Police Station- MIrganj, District- Gopalganj ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State Of Bihar

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department P.H.E.D. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

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

¶8

The Joint Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Chief Engineer Mechanical Public Health Wing, Public Health Engineering Department, Muzaffarpur

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, P.H. Circle, Chapra, Circle at Chapra.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, P.H. Division, Siwan.

¶13

The District Magistrate, Siwan ... Respondents

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate and Mr.Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, AC to SC

¶17

14====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶18

2 13-02-2019

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶20

learned counsel for the State.

¶21

Asserting his claim for regularization of service on the

¶22

post of Plumbing Khalasi the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 18989 of 2012 on 19.12.2013. Taking note of pendency of petitioner’s representation for regularization, writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 therein to take a decision on his representation in accordance with law. Regularization has been made from a panel prepared much prior to the panel dated 15.5.2008.

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.11369 of 2016(2) dt.13-02-2019 2/3

¶24

It is submitted by petitioner’s counsel that others junior to the petitioner, namely, Bipin Kumar, Malik Singh, Israrul Haque having been engaged on daily wages much after 4.9.1984, i.e., the date the petitioner was engaged on daily wages, have been regularized. Specific averment regarding petitioner’s claim being ignored and that juniors of the petitioner have been regularized, have been made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition.

¶25

Respondents have filed counter affidavit. They have chosen not to respond to the averments made by the petitioner asserting that his claim has been ignored and juniors of the petitioner have been regularized.

¶26

In view of the undisputed position emerging from records, this Court would find that the petitioner is legally entitled to benefits of regularization in view of the fact that his juniors from 2008 panel have been regularized ignoring his claim.

¶27

That being so, if there is no other impediment, respondents are obliged to consider petitioner’s claim for regularization of service on the post of Plumbing Khalasi expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.11369 of 2016(2) dt.13-02-2019 3/3

¶29

This Court would record undertaking given on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that in case such relief is granted to the petitioner, he would not be claiming any benefits of seniority over others who have been regularized prior to him, irrespective of their seniority in the panel.

¶30

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶32

Shashi

¶33

Nagendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savita Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Om Prakash Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Binodanand Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Pravesh Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.