IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10265 of 2025 ====================================================== Radha Gupta, Wife of Late Binod Prasad Gupta, Resident of Sao Garraz, Sahpur (Beside Nagendra Talkies), P.S.- Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The Bank of India, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001, through its Zonal Manager. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Adv. Ms. Dilkash Khan, Adv. Ms. Zeba Akhtar, Adv. Ms. Minu Kumari, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 07-07-2025 Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate for the Bank of India. 2. The petitioner happens to be mother of Ankesh Kumar Gupta, who is said to have been working in the Bank of India, however, he has been denied salary for the period since 2013. 3. Having gone through the writ petition, this Court does not find either any specific averments or documents/ papers, showing appointment/ engagement, transfer/ posting and/or retrenchment/removal of the son of the petitioner; save and except the legal notice. Moreover, it is averred that the son Patna High Court CWJC No.10265 of 2025(2) dt.07-07-2025 2/2 of the petitioner was posted at Zonal Office of Bank of India, Indore from where he was removed, but the present application came to be filed at the High Court of Judicature at Patna. 4. Suffice it to observe that there is a distinction between pleading under C.P.C. and in the writ petition. In the writ petition not only the facts but also the evidences in support of the facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. The reference may be taken to a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181. 5. In view of the afore-noted facts and the settled proposition, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 7. However, the dismissal will not preclude the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate authority/forum by filing appropriate application. supratim/- (Harish Kumar, J) U