Shail Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1073 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15065 of 2016 ====================================================== Shail Kumari W/o Sri Ratnesh Kumar Sinha D/o Late Maheshwar Prasad Singh, Rajkiya Awasiya Ambedkar Balika Uchch Vidyalaya, Rajwara,BlockMushari, Muzaffarpur, C/o Ratnesh Kumar Sinha, Village- Gayatri Nagar Najirpur, P.O- Sheikhpur, District- Muzaffarpur, Pin Code- 842002. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through Sri Anjani Kumar the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

Sri Prem Singh Mina The Principal Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

Sri Virendra Kumar The Director (Welfare), Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha (Ga7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 05-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties.

2. This application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding against the Opposite Parties alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 14.03.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.15065 of 2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that substantially the order of the Writ Court has been complied with except payment. He, therefore, submits that the Opposite Parties may be directed to make payment of the period during which the petitioner has worked as ad hoc employee.

4. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties

Patna High Court MJC No.1073 of 2019(7) dt.05-12-2025 2/2 opposes the prayer for the reason that there is no such direction contained in the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the writ Court.

5. From perusal of the order dated 14.03.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.15065 of 2016, it is clear that no specific order or direction has been given by the writ Court for making payment to the petitioner for the period during which the petitioner had worked as an ad hoc employee.

6. In this view of the matter, the relief as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted and hence the application stands dismissed.

7. The petitioner, however, would be at liberty to file a representation before the concerned authority for payment of admitted dues. If such representation is filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority, he shall dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of filing of representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. sanjeev/- (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) U