Patna High CourtL.P.A/1435/2016dismissed

Mina Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-11-28Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1435 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3072 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 5371 of 2016 =========================================================== Mina Devi, W/o- Late Ugneshwar Mandal, R/o- Village- Madanchak, Police Station- Amarpur And District- Banka.

.... .... Appellant / Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director, Primary Education, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Education Officer, Banka, District- Banka.

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Banka, District- Banka.

5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Amarpur, District- Banka.

6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Banka.

7. The Accountant General, Government of Bihar, Patna.

8. Nira Devi @ Meera Devi, W/o- Late Ugneshwar Prasad Mandal, R/o- VillageMadanchak, Police Station- Amarpur And District- Banka. .... .... Respondents / Respondents.

=========================================================== Appearance:

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 28-11-2017 Re. I.A. No. 5371 of 2016.

The delay of 1 year 125 days, which has been caused in preferring the appeal, is condoned.

I.A. No. 5371 of 2016 is allowed.

Re. L.P.A. No. 1435 of 2016.

The matter is thereafter taken up for consideration on

Patna High Court LPA No.1435 of 2016 dt.28-11-2017 2/2 merits.

Since the Writ Application was disposed of by a kind of consent order and agreement reached between the parties as has been duly recorded by the learned single Judge in his order, the arrangement so worked out between the parties is binding upon the parties. Any effort made now by the present appellant to seek some kind of modification to the said arrangement will be unethical, inequitable and, therefore, no interference is required to be made with the impugned order dated 30.01.2015.

Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Dilip, AR AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 30.11.2017 Transmission Date N/A