High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Partha Pratim Ghosh vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 1 October, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Partha Pratim Ghosh vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 1 October, 2010
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                      CWJC No.991 of 2006
                  PARTHA PRATIM GHOSH, son of Sri Tarok Nath Ghosh, resident of
                  Hari Niwas, Road No.39, P S - Gardanibagh, District - Patna.
                                                  Versus
                  1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
                  2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
                  3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative
                     Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
                  4. The Secretary, Department of Home (Special), Government of
                     Bihar, Patna.
                  5. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Finance,
                     Government of Bihar, Patna.
                  6. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of
                     Bihar, Patna.
                  7. The Secretary, Rural Engineering Department (R E O), Government
                     of Bihar, Patna.
                  8. The Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department (R E O ),
                     Government of Bihar, Patna.
                  9. The Under Secretary, Rural Development Department (REO)
                     Government of Bihar, Patna.
                                              -----------

04. 1.10.2010 When the writ was filed there were various kind of disputes

with regard to the period which was required to be regularized by way

of leave etc. in the stated circumstances. From the counter affidavit it

emerges that most of the period has been sorted out. Only issue left

now is for the period 5.2.2004 to 23.4.2004. This is the only period

which has not been accounted for. Explanation of the petitioner is that

this period should be treated waiting for posting in the circumstance that

the order of suspension stood withdrawn but not communicated to him

for a long period of time. The petitioner received this communication

only on 24.4.2004. In this regard he has annexed the postal receipt in

support thereof.

Counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that the order

was passed but for the reasons best known to the respondents it never

got communicated in time for which petitioner cannot be blamed.
2

In the above stated circumstance, the writ application is

disposed of with a direction upon respondent No.6, Secretary, Road

Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, that he shall get

the matter examined and sort out this minor issue within a reasonable

time-frame as the dispute now boils down for the period indicated

above.

rkp                             ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)