PREM LAL SAHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS M.J.C. petition was filed for 'restoration ' of L.P.A. No. 779 of 1999 which was dismissed because it was filed beyond the period of limitation and no petition for condonation of delay was filed even after time was allowed for the purpose by the Joint Registrar. In view of the reason for the dismissal of the letters patent appeal there could be no question of its 'restoration ' and the M.J.C. was, therefore, listed with the office note rightly raising an objection regarding its maintainability.

(2.) WE found that this M.J.C. petition contained some nasty allegations against the lawyer who happened to be the Advocate on record in the letters patent appeal. We also found that the petitioner was appearing in person in support of this M.J.C. petition. He is an old man superannuated from service about ten years ago. In court he was flustered and rambling. This court, therefore, felt obliged to give the petitioner a patient hearing and to examine his grievances closely lest there be any miscarriage of justice. We accordingly got the records of the earlier cases filed by him brought to the court and heard the petitioner at length on more than one dates. At the end of the exercise we found that there was absolutely no merits in the petitioner's claims and it was not possible for this court to give him any relief.

(3.) THE petitioner retired from Government service with effect from 30.9.1990. At that time he was working as Head Assistant under the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, National Highway. After his retirement from service, he first came to this court in CWJC No. 8755 of 1991 making allegations of adverse treatment being meted out to him by his superiors while in service and seeking a number of reliefs. That writ petition was permitted to be with drawn on 21.4.1992 leaving it open to the petitioner to agitate his grievances by making a representation before the appropriate authority. In furtherance of the order, the petitioner made his representation before the departmental authority which was rejected by an order, dated 9.9.1992.