IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2190 of 2010 1. ARUN KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE CHANDRA BALI SINGH R/O VILL.- CHAINPATTI, P.S. GOPALGANJ AND DISTT.- GOPALGANJ, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, LALGANJ, DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, BUDH MARG, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. D.K. Tandon, Advocate For the Respondent :Dr. Punam Kumari Singh, Advocate 02/ 05.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Budh Marg, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the Bank to consider his case for regularization, as he is serving the Bank in the capacity of Assistant since 1981, but till date his services has not been regularized, although he is paid salary every month, which is admissible to an Assistant minus the House Rent Allowance in terms of the office order, bearing Memo No. 2052 dated 31.7.2006. For the similar relief, petitioner had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 524 of 1989, 2519 of 1990 and L.P.A. No. 39 of 1996. Orders passed in the two writ applications and L.P.A. are contained in Annexures- 1,2 and 3 to this application. 3. From perusal of the orders contained in Annexures-1,2 and 3, it appears that the case of regularization of the petitioner has been earlier considered and disposed under orders dated 24.7.1996, passed in L.P.A. No. 39 of 1996 observing as follows: 2 “We, therefore, find no error in the judgement of the learned Single Judge who has directed the authority to consider the cases of the appellants for regularisation. In doing so, the authorities must follow the norms laid down by the Supreme Court in several judgements including State of Haryana & others Vs. Piara Singh & others (A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court, 2130). We may only observe that unnecessary delay in such matters should be avoided by the appointing authorities. Since we have not interfered with the judgement of the learned Single Judge, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice in the limitation matter. With the above observation, this appeal is disposed of.” 4. As the grievance raised in this application has already been considered by this Court and appropriate directions issued, this Court is not required to proceed any further with the writ application, which is dismissed. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)