Dineshwar Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.6663 of 2012 ====================================================== Dineshwar Prasad Yadav, son of late Dayal Yadav, resident of VillageKalyanpur, P.S. Konch, District Gaya (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. Mr. Navin Kumar, the Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar, Patna

3. Mr. Ashok Sinha, the then Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. Mr. I.D.S. Dhariwal, the Accountant General (A & E) II, Bihar, Patna

5. Satyendra Kumar Singh, son of late Mathura Prasad Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Motihari, P.S. Simri Bhakhtiarpur, District Saharsa, the then Treasury Officer, Gaya, District Gaya

6. Sri Ramjee Ravidas, at present the Treasury Officer, Gaya

7. The Accountant General (A & E) Jharkhand, Ranchi

8. The State of Jharkhand through the Collector, Gumla (Name not known) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birju Prasad For the State : Mr. Md. Anish Akhtar, AC to GA 1 For Accountant General,Biuhar:Mr. Madhuresh Prasad For State of Jharkhand : Mr. Satyavrat Verma, ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-09-2015 Heard the parties.

This application has been filed for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 11.5.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11089 of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been paid the entire retiral dues. On 6.5.2015 learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically raised a grievance that petitioner has not been paid arrears of

Patna High Court MJC No.6663 of 2012 (28) dt.22-09-2015 pension for the period 1.5.2002 to 30.7.2004. This Court has directed the opposite party to look and examine the matter and take appropriate steps so that the petitioner may be paid all arrears of pension without unnecessary delay. A supplementary show-cause has been filed by opposite party no.5 wherein details have been provided of crediting the arrears of pension in the account of the petitioner which is apparently clear from letter nos. 1279 and 1280 dated 8.9.2015 (Annexure-C and D to the third supplementary show-cause).

In such view of the matter, This proceeding has lost its purpose. Accordingly this application is dismissed. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U