IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2527 of 2008 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post India, New Delhi-Cum-The Director General, Department of Post India, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-1. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 3. The Deputy Divisional Manager (PLI) O/o the Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 4. The Assistant Director of Postal Services (P.C.) O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna. …..Petitioners. Versus 1. Rajkishore S/o Shri Gopal Das, at present section Supervisor P.G. Section, O/o the Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 2. Vinod Kumar Singh son of Late Devendra Nath Singh Postal Assistant (HSG-II) O/o Chief Post Master General Bihar Circle, Patna. 3. Uttam Nath Sharma, Son of Late Chatrgun Sharma, Section Supervior, O/o Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 4. Arun Kumar Singh son of Shri Chandra Deo Singh, Postal Assistant O/o Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 5. Chamak Lal Sah son of late Parsi Sah, Postal Assistant O/o Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 6. Anil Kumar Sinha son of Late Sambhu Nath Sinha, Postal Assistant O/o Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 7. Pramod Kumar Sinha son of Late Banwari Das, Postal Assistant O/o Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. …..Opposite Parties. ----------- 04. 30.03.2009 Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh for the petitioners. This application has been filed by the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 12152 of 2006 (The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajkishore & Ors.), to restore the writ petition to its original file. We have perused the materials on record and - 2 - considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, in O.A. No. 276 of 1997, the petitioners had preferred said C.W.J.C. No. 12152 of 2006. The same was taken up by a Division Bench on 16.05.2008, on which date none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners and it was adjourned to 23.07.2008. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners on 05.08.2008. One more opportunity was granted to the petitioners, the matter was again adjourned, and it was taken up on 27.08.2008, on which date also none had appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed for default. It thus appears to us that the petitioners have been negligent all through in pursuing the case. The writ petition was rightly dismissed for non-prosecution. This application is dismissed. Vikash/- (S.K. Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)