AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—When the case was taken up Mr. R. Krishna learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ application in view of the Annexures A and B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 5, i.e. the order passed by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5945 of 1999 and CWJC No. 7978 of 1999.
Heard Mr. V. Shivnath learned counsel for the petitioners on the point of maintainability of the writ application.
From the orders dated 3.2.2000 and 19.4.2000 passed in CWJC No. 5945 of 1999 and CWJC No. 7978 of 1999 as contained in Annexures A and B wherein it has been held as follows :
"The petitioners seek direction for payment of salary from the Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, Patna. They appear to be employees of the Beltron Video System Limited, Hajipur, which is a subsidiary company of the Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation. Their grievance is against the Beltron Video System Limited. They may seek their relief from the Beltron Video Systems Limited. The writ petition in its present form does not appear to be maintainable. The petition is disposed of."
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It appears that on identical facts another writ petition filed by one Ram Kripal Sharma and others was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 3.2.2000 which is as follows :
"The petitioners seek direction for payment of salary from the Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, Patna. They appear to be employees of the Beltron Video System Limited, Hajipur, which is a subsidiary company of the Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation. Their grievance is against the Beltron Video System Limited. They may seek their relief from the, Beltron Video System Limited. The writ petition in its present form does not appear to be maintainable. The petition is disposed of."
The present writ application is also based on identical facts and therefore, relying on the orders of the Patna High Court quoted above, it is held that the present writ application is not maintainable. Accordingly it is dismissed.