Patna High Court - Orders
Bindeshwari Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 February, 2013
Author: Navin Sinha
Bench: Navin Sinha, Shivaji Pandey
Patna High Court LPA No.148 of 2013 (2) dt.07-02-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.148 of 2013
======================================================
Bindeshwari Chaudhary, Son of Late Kailash Chaudhary, resident of
Mohalla- Pakri Ara New Colony, Suryamukhi Sadan, Post Office- Pakri
Ara, Police Station- Nawada Ara, District- Bhojpur (Retired from the post
of Technical Advisor (Executive Engineer) Drainage, Circle at Samastipur.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar.
2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan,
Patna.
4. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan,
Patna.
5. The Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Hajipur, District- Vaishali
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna Birchand Patel Marg, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Gopal Krishna
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. Tekriwal, G.A.-1.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)
2 07-02-2013Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 02.01.2013 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 19416 of 2012. The relief sought was for inclusion of the period he held the Non Gazetted post of Engineering Assistant from 05.05.1964 to 06.10.1966 for calculation of his retiral dues pursuant to superannuation on 31.01.1997.
The writ court opined that earlier when Patna High Court LPA No.148 of 2013 (2) dt.07-02-2013 pensionary benefits and gratuity were forfeited the challenge was dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal against the same was partially allowed restoring 50% of the retiral dues. Thereafter a fresh writ petition was filed seeking similar relief. The writ petition was dismissed. The Court opined that the fresh application was barred by res judicata.
There is no denial on behalf of the appellant that the recital of facts in the impugned order are erroneous.
We find no reason to interfere with the discussed conclusion that the writ petition was barred by res judicata.
Counsel for the State submits that LPA No. 814 of 2011 against the subsequent writ petition was also dismissed.
The Appeal is frivolous and is accordingly dismissed.
(Navin Sinha, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.) Md. Ibrarul/-