Patna High Court
Ganesh Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 November, 2015
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2708 of 2014
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 921 of 2014
===========================================================
Ganesh Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Aatul Prasad Mandal, at posted as Executive
Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Sasaram, presently posted as
Executive Engineer, P.H. Design & Planning Division No. 8, Patna. Permanent
resident of New Harinichak, Anisabad, P.S. Beur, District - Patna
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, the Chief Secretary,
Government of Bihar, Patna
2. Mr. Deepak Kumar, the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department,
Govternment of Bihar, Patna
3. Mrs. Anshuli Arya., the Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
4. Mrs. Anshuli Arya, the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
5. Mr. Jai Shanker Choudhary, the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
.... .... Opposite Parties
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. Azeem, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-14
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 23-11-2015 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the State.
The present application has been filed making a grievance of violation of order dated 06.02.2014 as the State has not granted any promotion as well as any consequential benefit to the petitioner whereas the Court has directed for consideration of his case Patna High Court MJC No.2708 of 2014 dt.23-11-2015 2/2 and giving the consequential benefit.
The Counsel for the State has submitted with regard to the order of this Court that the sprit of the order is only for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion and if there is no impediment, in that circumstances petitioner would be granted promotion including the consequential benefit. He has further brought to the notice of this Court about the order dated 06.02.2014, where the Special Executive Officer has considered the case of the petitioner and has arrived at a finding that the petitioner is not entitled to any promotion.
In view of the order dated 06.02.2014, the present application of contempt does not survive. However, the liberty is given to the petitioner, if so advised to challenge the said order before the appropriate court or authority.
With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vats/-
U