IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3311 of 2005 NAGESHWAR SINGH son of Ram Chandra Singh, R/o village Nisibuchak, Post Office & P.S. Fatuha, District Patna….Petitioner. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA , through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Government of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Railway of the Government of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Engineer (Construction) Eastern Railway, Kolkatta. 4. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Eastern Railway Danapur Division, Danapur, Patna. 5. The Deputy General Manager, Eastern Railway, 17 Netaji Subhash Road, Hare Street, Kolkatta, West Bengal. 6. The State of Bihar. 7. The Chief Secretary, to the Govoernment of Bihar, Patna. 8. The District Magistrate (Collector), Patna. 9. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna…..Respondents. ----------- 2 19.05.2011 Heard the parties. 2. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that for the same and similar relief C.W.J.C. No.4170 of 1999 was filed by the father of the petitioner besides others, but that writ petition was dismissed by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 3.4.2000 with a liberty to the petitioners of that case to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal at the first instance. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner besides others filed O.A. No. 481 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, which was disposed of by an order dated 10th of November, 2003 with certain observations and directions. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his claim is not being considered by the respondents authorities in the light of observations made by the learned Central Administrative 2 Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.The petitioner, without approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna , by filing a petition raising the issues of non-compliance of its orders and directions and for taking action under section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 (in short Act) has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking a direction for providing employment to him by the respondents. 4. After hearing the parties, this Court finds that the present writ petition is completely misconceived and ill- advised. If the petitioner is at all aggrieved due to inaction of the respondents and non-compliance of order and direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna , Bench, Patna, then he was required to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna , by filing a petition for initiating a proceeding for contempt under section 17 of the Act, but that has not been done by the petitioner. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain this misconceived petition. It is accordingly dismissed, with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper forum for redressal of his valid grievances. No costs. Rahman/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)