Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 216 (PAT)

Shivendra Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-23

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure-13, whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of clerk vide order, as contained in annexure-4, after due advertisement of the post, it is further submitted that the petitioners case was considered by the Divisional Selection Committee and he along with several others was appointed on the post of clerk. It is also submitted that one Ravindra Kumar Tiwary, similarly situated to the petitioner was terminated and the order of termination was challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1999 and this Court vide order, as contained in annexures 15 series, set aside the order of termination. 4. A list of the clerks working in Muzaffarpur Division under the respondents has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit, where the name of Ravindra Kumar Tiwary is at serial no. 1 and that of the petitioner is at serial no. 4. 5. On scrutiny of the order, as contained in annexure 15 series, it appears to me that the case of the petitioner is identical to that of Ravindra Kumar Tiwary, and, thus, the case of the petitioner is held to be identical to that of Ravindra Kumar Tiwary, and it is squarely covered by the order of this Court, as referred to above. 6. Learned counsel for the State, however, has tried to distinguish this case and stated that so many persons, similarly appointed, have been terminated. 7. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1994, whereas Ravindra Kumar Tiwary, was appointed in the year 1995 and he continued in services for some more time than Ravindra Kumar Tiwary aforesaid. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the case at hand is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1999 and, thus, it governs the case at hand as well. 9. In the result, this application is allowed and the order, as contained in annexure 13, is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated on his post. However, he will not be entitled for salary for the period he has not actually worked.