Pradip Kumar @ Pradip Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1386 of 2018 In Letters Patent Appeal No.2293 of 2016 ====================================================== Pradip Kumar @ Pradip Ram, Son of Bhim Ram, Resident of Villaghe/ Mohalla-Sonhan, P.S.-Sonhan, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Anjani Kumar Singh Son of not Known to the Petitioner, Chief secretary, Old Secretariat, Govt. of BIhar, Patna.

3.

Amir Subhani, Son of not Known to the Petitioner, Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.

K. S. Dwivedi, Son of Not Known to the Petitioer, Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

5.

Mannu Maharaj Son of not Known to the Petitioner, Senior Superintendant of Police, Patna.

6.

Mrs. Harjeet Kaur, Son of not Known to the Petitioner, Superintendent of Police, Kaimur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) Date : 20-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appointment of the petitioner in the District Police Force was set aside by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna on the ground of his alleged involvement in a criminal case.

Patna High Court MJC No.1386 of 2018 dt.20-04-2023 2/3

3. The learned single Judge hearing the writ petition bearing No. 3313 of 2014, vide judgment dated 23.11.2016, set aside such order of dismissal and directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioner with 50% back wages.

4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the afore-noted judgment of the learned single Judge vide L.P.A. No. 2293 of 2016, wherein the judgment of the learned single Judge was modified to the extent that the respondents were directed to pay 100% back wages to the petitioner.

5. From the show cause reply filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 5, it appears that initially 50% back wages was given to the petitioner, whereafter rest 50% was also given to him.

6. It has also been stated in the show cause reply that this contempt petition was filed before the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal had been complied with.

Patna High Court MJC No.1386 of 2018 dt.20-04-2023 3/3

7. In that view of the matter, nothing remains for us to keep this contempt petition pending and thus it is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) ( Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/Praveen AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 25.04.2023 Transmission Date