IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1385 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7141 of 2009 ====================================================== Manti Devi, W/o Late Shivnath Mahto, Resident of Shivaji Nagar, Makhdumpur, Digha Ghat, Police Station- Digha, District- Patna. .... .... Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Information and Public Relations Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Joint Secretary, Information and Public Relations Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath AAG 3 Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.C. to AAG 3. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 25-10-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 7141 of 2009, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The subject matter of dispute is the pre-mature retirement in public interest of the Government servant Late Shivnath Mahto in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 74(b) (ii) of the Bihar Service Code. The order of pre-mature retirement was made on 30th June 2007. The said Shivnath Mahto died on 22nd September 2008, fifteen months after the order of pre-mature retirement. The said Shivnath Mahto did not challenge the said order before any legal forum. After his death, the said order was Patna High Court LPA No.1385 of 2011 (3) dt.25-10-2011 2 / 2 2 challenged by his wife, the appellant in above CWJC No. 7141 of 2009. The learned single Judge has considered the order of compulsory retirement made in public interest on merits and has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. We have one more ground for dismissing the writ petition. As recorded hereinabove the Government servant concerned Late Shivnath Mahto did not choose to challenge the order of pre-mature retirement made in public interest. The right to employment is a right in personum. The only aggrieved person can be the concerned Government servant. If the person concerned did not challenge the order, his wife could not have challenged the same after the death of the Government servant. In our opinion, the appellant, the wife of late Shivnath Mahto had no locus standi to challenge the order of pre-mature retirement made against Late Shivnath Mahto. The petition deserves to be dismissed for want of locus standi also. For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)