Patna High Court - Orders
The Bihar State Food & Civil S vs Mithilesh Devi on 5 July, 2011
Author: Vikash Jain
Bench: Vikash Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.1186 of 2010
1. The Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited through its ManagingDirector,
Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, District Patna-1.
2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Sone
Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Distt.- Patna-1
3. The Chief of Administration, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,
Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Distt.- Patna-1
4. The District Manager, The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,
District Office- Nawada, P.S.- Nawada, Distt.- Nawada
Respondents- Appellants
Versus
Mithilesh Devi W/o Late Doctor Sinha resident of Village.- Bhandhari, P.O. and P.S.-
Nalanda, Distt.- Nalanda Respondent.
-----------
04 05.07.2011Heard Mr. Amarendra Narayan Rai for the appellants, and Mr.Bishnu Kant Dubey for the respondent.
2. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna arises out of order dated 3.7.2008, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.3781 of 2008 (Docter Sinha Vrs. The Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd and ors.), whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years has been granted to the employees of the appellant Corporation. This is identical to the subject matter of LPA No.850 of 2009 (Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & ors. Vrs. Mahendra Pratap Singh), and the analogous LPA No.922 of 2009 (Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & ors. Vrs.Maha Shankar Prasad), which have been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, as a result of which the order of the learned single Judge in writ petitions of those matters have been upheld. In other words, the Division Bench has held that the learned 2 single Judge in those writ petitions has rightly granted the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years.
3. We have no doubt that the present appeal is fully covered by the judgment dated 22.2.201, passed in those two appeals.
4. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
psc ( S.K.Katriar,J. )
( Vikash Jain, J. )