Dilip Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1548 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19117 of 2011 =========================================================== Dilip Kumar Chaudhary S/o Late Ram Briksh Chaudhary age 64 Resident of Mohalla Nehru Nagar (North), P.S. Patliputra, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sri Vijay Krishna, Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. Sri Dharmendra Singh, Director, Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. Sri Arminder Singh, Director, Horticulture Directorate, Bihar, Patna.

6. Sri Dharmendra Singh, Administrator, Earstwhile Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, patna.

7. Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, the Provident Fund Commissioner, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. null null

8. Sri Sanjay Kumar, Accountant General, Bihar, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : GP31 SMT. BINITA SINGH =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-02-2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the contempt complained of in this application is of an interim order passed on 19.8.2013 in C.W.J.C. No.19117/2011 wherein while admitting the writ petition it was directed that the admissible pensionary claims be paid to the employee concerned. Inter alia contending that the admissible claims have not been paid, this application has been filed for contempt. However,

Patna High Court MJC No.1548 of 2015 dt.09-02-2018 2/2 respondents have filed a show cause and indicate that the admissible claims have been paid.

That being the position, in view of the order, Annexure 4, passed on 5.1.2018, no further indulgence in this contempt application can be made.

However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a prayer for early hearing of the writ petition. If advised, the petitioner may file an application for early hearing of the matter or make a mention on the administrative side before the Chief Justice considering the fact that the petitioner is a retired senior citizen having retired in the year 2008.

If such an application on administrative side is filed, Registrar General is expected to place the same before the Chief Justice for necessary orders.

With the aforesaid observations and liberty, this application is disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date12-02-2018 Transmission Date