Naresh Prasad Sinha, v. The State Of Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.499 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12980 of 2017 ====================================================== Naresh Prasad Sinha, Son of Late Kailash Prasad Sinha, Resident of Village - Goshi, District- Jahanabad. At Present - Qr. No. B/12, Ganga Bridge Colony, P.S. - Hajipur, District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sri Prataya Amrit, The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bisheshawaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3.

Sri Pankaj Kumar Pal, The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4.

Sri Sanjay Dubey, The Additional Secretary, Rural Work Department, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

5.

Sri Hanuman Prasad Chaudhary The Engineer - in - Chief - Cum - Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bishweshawaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

6.

Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, The Engineer - in - Chief, North Bihar Cum - Enquiry Officer, Road Construction Department, Darbhanga. 7.

Dr. Alok Kumar, The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Akhilesh Dutta Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Syed Iqbal Ahmad, SC-20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-09-2023 Following was the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 25.10.2021, passed in CWJC No. 12980 of 2017:- "20. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 24.02.2014 and 27.06.2014 are set aside. Consequent upon quashing of the impugned orders, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and grant

Patna High Court MJC No.499 of 2022(5) dt.15-09-2023 2/2 him all consequential benefits including back wages for the period during which the petitioner remained out of service because of illegal order of dismissal passed without any evidence, within a period of three months from today.

21. In the facts and circumstances noted above, in the Court's opinion, it is a fit case where the respondents should be saddled with cost, which is assessed at Rs. 10,000/-." Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner was reinstated and he has been paid the back wages. He, however, submits that the pensionary benefits have not been paid.

There was no such direction of this Court in the said order for payment of pensionary benefits. No case of breach of the order dated 25.10.2021 is made out. There is no deliberate violation of this Court's order.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Rajesh/- U