IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2797 of 2007 Mansoor Alam Mansoori, S/O- LATE MD. ISSA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BARA PATHAR, MASZID ROAD, DEHRI-ON-SONE, P.S.-DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTRICT- ROHTAS AT SASARAM:--- PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT N.H.MECHANICAL, VISHWESWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION NATIONAL HIGHWAY, MECHANICAL BRANCH, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY MECHANICAL BRANCH, DEHRI-ON-SONE ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT- ROHTAS AT SASARAM :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- 2. 08.09.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, to direct the State-respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Mechanical Assistant as he was appointed to serve as Mechanical Assistant in the scale of Rs. 775-1025/- under Office Order bearing Memo No. 666 dated 19.06.1995 issued under the signature of the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical, National Highway (Mechanical Circle), Patna. In this connection it is also pointed out that the petitioner was allowed increment under Office Order No. 280 dated 14.12.1996 by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, National Highway, Hazaribagh, Annexure-2. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact that petitioner was appointed and allowed increment under order dated 2 19.6.1995 and 14.12.1996, Annexures- 1,2 his services were terminated way back in the year 1998 vide letter dated 29.8.1998, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit and since then till date he remained out of employment. 3. Prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition to regularize his services cannot be entertained as his service/engagement stood terminated as far back in the year 1998 i.e. with effect from 29.8.1998. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of another Single Judge of this Court in the case of Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 690. Reliance placed by the learned counsel on the aforesaid judgment is wholly misplaced in view of the fact that in the said judgment the Court was considering the prayer of the petitioners of the reported case for quashing the enquiry-report submitted by five member committee finding the appointment of the petitioners of the reported case to be illegal or forged after they remained in service for 20/18 years or more from the date of their initial appointment. 5. Petitioner having served for hardly three years and having approached this Court after about 9 years of the date of the termination of his engagement/service, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition, which is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)