IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.187 of 2008 KAMAL NAYAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, J.C. to AAG -VII ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 29th July, 2008. We heard the counsel for the parties. 2. L.P.A. is admitted. 3. Looking to the controversy involved in the appeal, we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be disposed of at this stage itself. We proceed accordingly. 4. The government counsel does not dispute that the controversy raised in C.W.J.C. No. 7148 of 2002 is identical to the controversy that the present appellant has raised in his writ petition. That C.W.J.C No.7148 of 2002 was disposed of on 17th May, 2007 is not in dispute. Ordinarily, therefore, the petitioner‟s writ petition ought to have been disposed of in the light of that order. However, the Single Judge denied the said relief to the appellant on the ground that - 2 - he approached the court belatedly. Is it so? That is the question for us to decide. 5. The appellant claims to be retrenched census employee who worked for more than eight months. He raised his grievance concerning non -consideration of his case for absorption in the service of the State Government in terms of the policy and guidelines issued by it by filing a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 9064 of 1998). His grievance was that while respondents were preparing the list of retrenched census employees, his name was wrongly shown as „Kamal Narayan Singh‟ in place of „Kamal Nayan Singh‟ which actually resulted in non -consideration of his case for absorption in the service of the State government. 6. That writ petition was disposed of on 9th August, 2000 by the following order – “It is stated that the case of the petitioner has now been examined and his name has now been included in the list of candidates to be appointed on account of adjustment as retrenched Census employees whose names are being considered for appointment, which includes the name of petitioner and the process of consideration is likely to be completed. In the facts and circumstances, while I do not choose to give any specific finding relating to appointment of petitioner, direct the authorities to finalise the matter at an early date, preferably within six months.” 7. It is, thus, apparent that the earlier writ petition came to be disposed of as representation was made to the court on behalf of - 3 - the State government that the name of the appellant has been included in the retrenched census employees and the process of consideration was likely to be completed. The Court gave six months time for finalization of the matter. 8. It appears that by order dated 16th March, 2002 claim of the petitioner stood rejected. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in contempt jurisdiction by alleging that issuance of order dated 16th March, 2002 amounts to disobedience of the order of this court. The contempt application (M.J.C. No. 918 of 2005) was withdrawn on 20th January, 2006 with liberty to the petitioner to assail the order as contained in memo no. 22 dated 16th March, 2002 in appropriate proceedings. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2007. By this time, the writ petition filed by similarly situated persons, namely, Tuntun Prasad Singh and ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 7148 of 2002) came to be decided on 17th May, 2007. 9. The aforesaid facts would not lead to an inference that the appellant slept over his rights and approached the court belatedly. The consideration of the matter by the Single Judge is not in right perspective. As a matter of fact, the first paragraph of the order does not record correctly that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination. 10. For the reasons stated in the order dated 17th May, 2007, the order contained in memo no. 22 dated 16th March, 2002 - 4 - stands quashed. 11. Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to that extent and the order dated 21st January, 2008 passed by the Single Judge is set aside. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/