Ugeshwar Pandey v. Amrit Lal Meena, The Chief Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.407 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8557 of 2023 ====================================================== Ugeshwar Pandey Son of Shri Ram Chandra Pandey, Resident of Nawadih, Post- Katariya, P.S.- Agion Bazar, District- Bhojpur, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Amrit Lal Meena, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2.

Mithilesh Mishra, District Magistrate, Collectorate Office Lakhisarai, at Lakhisarai.

3.

Shashi Kumar, the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Lakhisarai, at Lakhisarai.

4.

Mithlesh Mishra, the In-charge Officer, Disaster Management, Lakhisarai, at Lakhisarai.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Government Pleader 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2025 This contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 07.02.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8557 of 2023, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to consider the payment of interest on the remuneration already paid to the petitioner, as and when the petitioner submits an application or representation for payment of the interest on the remuneration already paid.

2. Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 / the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Lakhisarai & the In-charge Officer, Disaster Management, Lakhisarai, have filed a show cause and a

Patna High Court MJC No.407 of 2025(7) dt.22-08-2025 2/2 supplementary show cause.

3. In the supplementary show cause filed by the O.P Nos. 2 & 3, in paragraph no. 3, thereof, it has been stated that the payment of interest on the remuneration already paid to the petitioner was considered by the Members of District Establishment Committee, Lakhisarai and upon such consideration, the Committee has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for payment of the interest on remuneration amount.

4. Since, the direction in the writ petition was limited to consideration of the petitioner's prayer for payment of interest on the remuneration already paid and the opposite parties upon consideration of the same has rejected the prayer of the petitioner, I find that the order passed in the writ petition has been complied with by the opposite parties.

5. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed and disposed off.

(Nani Tagia, J) Nilmani/- U