IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1169 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8880 of 2009 ====================================================== Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad Pandey, S/o Late Ram Anup Pandey, R/o Vill.- Saidpur, P.S.- Chakmehashi, Distt.- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 5. Director, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna 6. Principal, Dharam Samaj Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Rambagh, Muzaffarpur 7. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University through its Registrar, Darbahnga .... .... Respondents-Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to AAG-13 For the Respondent Univ.: Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 26-09-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5th July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. Patna High Court LPA No.1169 of 2011 (2) dt.26-09-2011 2 / 2 2 No. 8880 of 2009, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant, a Vaidya Teacher in the Dharam Samaj Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Rambagh, Muzaffarpur affiliated to Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University seeks the benefit of enhancement in the age of superannuation (62 years) admissible to the Doctors (teaching or non-teaching) under the Health Department. Admittedly, the appellant was not appointed by the Health Department nor was he a teacher in any medical college. Being the employee of the Education Department he has been retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation (60 years). The claim has been rejected by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)