IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.46 of 2010 LALDEV, SON OF MANNU MAHATO, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SOUTH CHANDMARI ROAD, AZAD NAGAR ROAD, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPT. OF RAJBHASHA GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, RAJBHASHA DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE REGISTRAR, RAJBHASHA DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, RAJBHASHA DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. --------- 04. 16.03.2011 Petitioner is seeking review of the orders of this Court dated 8.9.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11608 of 2009, whereunder this Court disposed of the writ petition in the light of the instructions contained in letter no.2495 dated 11.6.2008, Annexure-8/A, whereunder it has been observed that the file concerning memo no.1/Confidential dated 31.1.1996, Annexure-6 is not traceable in the department. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that reference to letter dated 11.6.2008, Annexure-8A in the order dated 8.9.2009 under review is incorrect and writ petition should have been disposed of in the light of letter no.1301 dated 11.12.2008, Annexure-10, whereunder information sought for by the petitioner was furnished to him in 11 sheets with further instruction that if petitioner is aggrieved by the information received, he may approach the appellate authority, i.e. the Principal Secretary, Cabinet Co-ordination Department of the State Government within 30 days. Further memo no.1/Confidential dated 31.1.1996, Annexure-6 has not been issued to the petitioner by - 2 - the authorities. In the order under review this Court had not restrained the petitioner from filing appeal before the Principal Secretary, Cabinet Co-ordination Department of the State Government and it is for him to avail such remedy. So far nature of appointment of the petitioner as Class-IV employee in the Official Language Department of the State Government is concerned, bare perusal of office order no.62 dated 19.3.1986 would indicate that petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee in the scale of Rs.350-425/- on temporary basis and his appointment was co-terminus with the appointment of Chairman, Hindi Development Committee, such fact is very much evident from paragraph-2 of the appointment letter. No sooner the tenure of appointment of the President, Hindi Development Committee came to an end, in my opinion, the term of appointment of the petitioner also came to an end. While prosecuting the appeal in the light of Annexure-10, petitioner is at liberty to place reliance on Annexures-2, 3, and 4 but the instructions contained in Annexures-2, 3 and 4 is to be read in the light of Annexure-1. 3. With the observation aforesaid, the review application is disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)