FUNNU MIAN Vs. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner has approached this Court once again for a direction upon the respondents authorities of the Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd. to pay salary and allowances due since 1st June, 1993.

(2.) IT appears from perusal of Annexure -12, the order passed in CWJC No. 1287/1995(R) that the petitioner had earlier approached the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench for the same relief alleging that he has not received his salary since September,1992 and had made representations before the respondent no. 2 which were not being disposed of. The Patna High Court vide its order contained at Annexure -12 directed the respondent no.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated time and if the petitioner was found to be working under the respondents corporation as a driver, his current and arrears of salary must be paid to him. The respondents have brought on record the order passed on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Patna High Court which is contained at Annexure -A to the counter affidavit dated 27th March, 1996 and is also enclosed to the writ petition contained at Annexure -15. From the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents and upon perusal of the reasoned order (Annexure -A), it appears that the petitioner was asked to submit documents in order to show his engagement under the respondents within the stipulated period and the documents relied upon by the petitioner were not found to be authenticated by any competent authority in order to establish his claim. It was further indicated therein that the respondents corporation was suffering from severe financial crunch and was under liquidation. In spite of that the respondents found that the petitioner is entitled to payment of certain amount upto May, 1993 totaling Rs. 16,803/ which was issued vide Cheque dated 27th March, 1996. Accordingly, the petitioner's representations were disposed of by the said reasoned order in the year 1996 itself. This writ petition has again been preferred, inter alia, for the same relief although reasoned order has not been challenged in the present writ application.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction to grant any relief to the petitioner. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.