Allowed

Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Feb 2019CWJC/12408/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition regarding a compassionate appointment claim. Relying on a Division Bench decision and principles from Canara Bank v M.Mahesh Kumar, it held that a 2016 policy change does not affect cases already processed before that date. The matter is remanded for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with the matter remanded to respondents for reconsideration without relying on the 2016 policy change.

Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12408 of 2016

¶2

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

¶3

Mithilesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Raj Kishor Singh resident of village - Alipur, P.O. - Alipur, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, District - Bhojpur at Ara.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Personal and Administrative Department, Govt of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶7

The District and Sessions Judge Bhojpur at Ara (in administrative Capacity).

¶8

The Registrar, Civil Court, Bhojpur at Ara.

¶9

The Registrar, Administration, Patna High Court, Patna.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate Mr.Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Mankeshwar- Advocate ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 13-02-2019

¶14

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since his claim for compassionate appointment had been processed and recommended in the year 2015 itself, change of policy effected in 2016 cannot stand in the way of consideration of petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.

¶15

Counsel for the respondents appeared. He has brought to the notice of this Court a decision of the Division Bench dated 18.07.2017 passed in LPA no. 2390 of 2016. Under similar circumstance the Division Bench of this Court relying upon the principles of law in the case of Canara Bank and another versus M. Mahesh Kumar reported in ( 2015) 7 SCC 412 has held that subsequent change in the policy brought out in the year 2016 would not apply to the cases which were already processed

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.12408 of 2016 dt.13-02-2019 2/2

¶17

and recommended for compassionate appointment prior thereto. In view of the legal position, the Division Bench has remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of the position of law emanating from the judgment in the case of Canara Bank (supra).

¶18

Since the said decision of the Division Bench squarely covers the case of the petitioner, petitioner’s case is also remanded to the respondents for reconsideration without relying upon the policy change of the year 2016.

¶19

Writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations.

¶20

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶21

Prakash/-

¶22

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date

Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Kumar Singh 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

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.

Nagendra Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Pravesh Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.