← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/1179/2019disposed

Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2022-10-12Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1179 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10010 of 2015 ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, S/o Baban Yadav, R/o Raghunathpur, P.O. and P.S.- Raghunathpur, District-Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Secretary (Vacant) Department of Health, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Director in Chief (Dr. Rajdhari Ranjan) Department of Health, Bihar, Patna 4.

The District Magistrate cum Chairman (Sushri Ranjita) District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Siwan 5.

The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer (Ashes) Siwan ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Ajay Behari Sinha, GA8 Mr.Upendra Kumar Singh, AC to GA8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 12-10-2022 The learned state counsel, referring to paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the show cause, submits that the District Compassionate Committee, at its meeting dated 12.07.2021, has allowed the petitioner's compassionate appointment. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. He, however, submits that the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.10010 of 2015, out of which the instant contempt proceedings arises, takes notice of the long delay caused by the lethargic attitude of the respondent-Authorities. He thus submits that claiming benefit of the appointment with a prior date,

Patna High Court MJC No.1179 of 2019(3) dt.12-10-2022 2/2 placing reliance on the observations made in the writ Court's order, the petitioner would be availing his remedy, in accordance with law.

Whether there is any scope for the petitioner to avail the proposed remedy, or not, is an issue, regarding which this Court would refrain from expressing any opinion in contempt jurisdiction.

No case is made out for proceeding further in contempt proceedings.

Application is disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- U