The necessity for separate applications for individual grievances in employment matters is affirmed.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

4 27-01-2026 Re: I.A. no. 1 of 2017 (4925 of 2017)

The instant application has been filed by the petitioners praying for amendment in the prayer portion of the writ application and for adding the following prayer:-

“For quashing of Letter no. 320 dated 29.6.2017 passed by Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Triveniganj, whereby and whereunder, petitioner no. 13, namely, Niraj Kumar Verma has been terminated from service as computer operator with effect from 01.07.2017.”

2. It may be observed here that initially the writ application was filed by 16 petitioners praying for a direction to the respondents to regularize their service as the petitioners were performing their duties as computer operator under the State Government in Irrigation and Water Resources Department.

3. Though the Court was of the opinion that even matters of regularization gave rise to individual cause of action of each of the 16 writ petitioners, however the writ application having remained pending since the year 2017, no order has been passed in the nature of restricting the application to one writ petitioner. However, an order of termination having been passed with respect to one petitioner i.e. petitioner no. 13, so far as the prayer made by the petitioners in the instant interlocutory application is concerned, the petitioner concerned would be well advised to pursue the same by a separate/individual writ application.

4. I.A. no. 1 of 2017 (4925 of 2017) stands disposed of.

Re. I.A. no.2 of 2018 (3748 of 2018)

5. The instant application has been filed by the intervenors with the prayer to add them as co-petitioners in the instant application as the case of the intervenors and the relief sought by them is similar to that of the petitioners herein.

6. The application is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents who submits that under the Patna High Court Rules an intervention application can only be allowed in opposition to the prayer made in the writ application and not otherwise.

7. The Court finds substance in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and no merit in the instant application.

8. I.A. no. 2 of 2018 (3748 of 2018) stands dismissed.

(Partha Sarthy, J)