Most. Raj Kumari Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2139 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Most. Raj Kumari Devi, Wife of Late Laldeo Singh Resident of VillageAgondha, P.O.-Kachnama, P.S.- Belaganj, District-Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Collector, District-Jehanabad namely Sri Aditya Kumar Das.

2. The Collector, District Arwal namely Sri Sanjay Singh.

3. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna namely, Sir Sanjay Kumar.

4. The Director, Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Baile Road Patna. Namely Sri Arun Kumar Mishra.

5. The District Provident Fund Officer Jehanabad namely Sri Ram Sukhit Ray son of Late Bhola Roy, R/o- Village-Mananpur, P.S.-Khanpur, District-Samastipur.

6. The Treasury Officer, Arwal namely Sri Prem Kumar Pusp.

7. The Circle Officer, Kurtha (Arwal) Sri Arbind Kumar Singh. .... .... Opp. Parties.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ghanshyam Sharma For the Respondent/s : AC to SC-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 24-08-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and AC to SC-10 for the State.

A show cause on behalf of the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 is filed. There is no rejoinder.

The present application alleges wilful/deliberate disregard/disobedience of the order dated 30.1.2016 passed in CWJC No. 6555 of 2014 at the hands of the opposite parties. A claim with regard to the payment of GPF dues of the years 1970 to 1971, 1976 to 1978 and 1979 to 1981 was raised

Patna High Court MJC No.2139 of 2016 (2) dt.24-08-2016 2/2 in the application. The State seriously objected to such stale claim of the petitioner. The Court, under the order dated 30.01.2016, permitted the petitioner to represent before the concerned respondent for payment of those dues and expressed a hope that the same shall receive due consideration. In para 9 of the show cause, the opposite parties have stated that steps have been taken to collect relevant papers/details.

Looking to the order passed on the writ petition and the stand taken in the show cause, I am satisfied that no case for wilful/deliberate disobedience of the order at the hands of the concerned opposite party is made out.

The contempt application is dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U