IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3582 of 2011 1. Bihar Jharkhand Rajay Vidyut Parishad Field Kamgar Union Khas Mahal More P.S. Jakkanpur, Patna 2. Rajnee Kant Sinha, son of Late Chandra Shekhar Pd. …Petitioners Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 2. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna …Respondents ----------- 05. 01.08.2011 This application has been filed by the Union of Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidyut Parishad Field Kamgar espousing the cause of the employees of the Board. The petitioner(s) assail the order/notification of the Respondent-Board dated 30.11.2010, issued by the Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board (for short „the Board‟). It is the stand of the petitioner(s) that sustainability of the impugned notification dated 30.11.2010 has already been considered by this Court in CWJC No. 1495 of 2011 (Krishna Nandan Chodhary vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) whereby the submissions of the Respondent-Board to support the aforesaid order was not found sustainable in law. This Court on a considerations of the pleadings on record and submissions made in support thereof allowed the said writ petition by order dated 11.03.2011 (Annexure-6) in following terms: “In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed. The impugned Notification, dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure-4) as also the Board‟s Resolution No.8565 are quashed.” Learned counsel for the respondent-Board, on the 2 other hand, submits that the Board has already preferred a writ appeal against the said order dated 11.03.2011, vide LPA No. 847 of 2011. Having heard the parties, this Court finds that the reasons assigned by the Respondent-Board in support of the said notification have not found sustainable in law by a learned Judge of this Court. Accordingly, in accordance with the ratio laid down in CWJC No. 1495 of 2011, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned notification dated 30.11.2010 as contained in Annexure-1. I order accordingly. However, it is clarified that the present order shall abide by the out come of LPA No.847 of 2011 said to have been preferred by the Respondent-Board which is pending consideration in this Court. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )