D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially working as a Chain Man, and thereafter, he was appointed as Truck Khalasi, and from 1978, the work of the Driver was taken from the present petitioner, and the salary for the post of Driver was never paid, and therefore, the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4324 of 2000 was instituted before the High Court of Patna, Bench at Ranchi, and this writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.12.2000, whereby a direction was given as under: Having regard to the facts of the case as stated in the writ petition, I dispose of the same by directing the petitioner to file fresh representation before the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Jharkhand with a copy to the Executive Engineer, Gumla within two weeks from today. If such representation is filed, respondent No. 3 Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi shall consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of representation.
(2.) DESPITE the aforesaid direction, no salary was paid for the post of Driver, and therefore, a Cont. (Civil) Case No. 25 of 2004, was instituted. In contempt application, reply given by the respondent that for the post of driver, a license presented by the writ petitioner. Some enquiry was going on about his license, and therefore, the contempt application was disposed of, but, no enquiry has been ended with an enquiry report, and then once again, despite the direction, no salary is being paid, and the representation preferred by the petitioner has been brushed aside by the respondents. The order dated 26 September, 2007, at annexure -14, wherein it has been stated that for giving promotion to the post of Driver, vacancy, seniority, roster, etc. has to be considered and the petitioner has given consent to work as Driver, and therefore, the petitioner's case has been discarded. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the High Court gives a direction to consider the case of the petitioner; meaning thereby to keep in mind all the legalities and the procedure, the case of the petitioner ought to be considered.
(3.) LOOKING to the impugned order at Annexure -14, nothing has been considered at all by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Ranchi, and by sheer non -application of mind, the petitioner's case has been brushed aside, and therefore, the matter may be remanded for afresh decision in accordance of law, including the vacancy, seniority, roster, rules and regulations and the length of service as rendered by the present petitioner as a Driver.;