Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 1733
2012 (1) PLJR 133
PATNA HIGH COURT
T. Meena Kumari and Vikash Jain, JJ.
The Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, lcha-Chaliyama, P.O.- Keshar Gadhia, District- West Singhbhum & Ors.
vs.
Shri Biswanath Singh son of Thakur Dayal Singh, resident of g Village Belchari, P.S.-Murar, District-Buxar & Ors.
LPA No. 1226 of 2005
Decided On : 18.8.2011
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Appeals
Act Referred
Headnote
Maintainability - State of Jharkhand - Appeal against order upholding action of State of Bihar in not agreeing with second time bound promotion granted to petitioner-respondent
Fact of the Case:
The State of Jharkhand appealed against the order upholding the action of the State of Bihar in not agreeing with the second time bound promotion granted to the petitioner-respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand itself is not maintainable as the payments have to be made by the State of Bihar.
Issues: Maintainability of the appeal by State of Jharkhand
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appeal is not maintainable as the payments have to be made by the State of Bihar.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the order dated 22.6.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9714 of 2002*, whereby the learned Single Judge has upheld the action of the State of Bihar in not agreeing with the second time bound promotion granted to the petitioner-respondent herein.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent took a serious objection stating that the State of Jharkhand is not an aggrieved person and the appeal is not being preferred by the State of Bihar, who has to effect the payment.
3. We agree with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand itself is not maintainable as the payments have to be made by the State of Bihar.
4. Under the above circumstances, we are not inclined to dwell on the merits of the case. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.
