Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.105 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10423 of 1996 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar aged about 49 years (male) son of Gajendra Rajak, resident of R.D.D.E. Kothi, Nagar Parishad, Ward No. 1, Officer's Colony, P.O. and District- Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through R.K. Bahajan, Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. Giriward Dayal Singh, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Takiuddin Ahmed, R.D.D.E, Koshi, Saharsa.

4. Rahul Chandra Mandal, D.P.O Saharsa.

5. Sarvar Islam, Principal, Zila School, Saharsa. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey AAG-15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present contempt application has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 17.03.1998 in C.W.J.C. No. 425 of 1996, it is next submitted that the writ application was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 2 within 30 days of the order and in the event if the respondent no. 2 comes to a conclusion that the petitioner had worked for the period in question, then necessary orders were required to be passed.

Patna High Court MJC No.105 of 2020(5) dt.23-03-2023 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner in compliance of the order of the Writ Court represented within the time frame and thereafter he received payment of Rs. 1,70,000/-, it is next submitted that still certain amounts are due.

On query of the Court that as to what amount is still due, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he sought instruction from the petitioner, but he was not able to give proper instruction that as to what amount is still to be paid. The learned counsel for the State submits that the order has been complied.

Be that as it may, the Court does not feel persuaded to proceed with the contempt application.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present contempt application is dismissed.

However, in the event if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he will avail his remedies available in law. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U