SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

Maintainability of appeal based on the party responsible for making payments

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.

Order

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top