Harish Chandra Pd. And ORS v. State And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.271 of 1987 ====================================================== Harish Chandra Prasad, son of Satyadeo Prasad, resident of village Pakariya, P.S. Paharpur, District East Champaran .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Patna
2. Water Development Corporation, through its Chairman, Patna
3. Chief of Administrative Officer, Bihar State Water Development Corporation, Patna
4. Chief Engineer, North Bihar Water Development Corporation, Muzaffarpur
5. Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division, Chapra
6. Bindeshwari Singh, son of not known, at present working as Managing Director, Bihar State Water Development Corporation, Patna .... .... Opp. Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None For the State : Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, AC to G.P.2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) 15-03-2016 A Division Bench of this Court issued direction in a writ petition, filed by 214 petitioners, on 20th December, 1982 to the effect that till the date of order of termination of their services, they would be entitled to all their salaries, besides ex gratia payment for which liberty was granted to the petitioners to take recourse to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said directions are said to be not complied with as pointed in the present petition for contempt.
Patna High Court MJC No.271 of 1987 (21) dt.15-03-2016 We do not find that any direction can be issued at this stage as liberty was granted to terminate services of the petitioners after complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. If the services are terminated, they will take recourse to the remedy against termination of the services. Since there is nobody to press the petition on behalf of the petitioner, it cannot be said that whether the petitioner has been paid salary till termination of the service.
The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Hemant Gupta, J) (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/- U