Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5701 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 833 of 2013 ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Srivastava, S/O Late Bhola Prasad Srivastava, Resident Of Village Bokane Kala, P.S. Patahi, District East Champaran at Motihari. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. Mrs. Anshuli Arya, wife of not known to the petitioner presently posted as the Principal Secretary, Public Health and Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. Sri Sujeet Kumar S/O Not Known to the Petitioner Presently Posted As the Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Public Health Engineering Division, Dhaka, District East Champaran At Motihari. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh,Advocate.

For the Opp. Party/s :

Mrs. Shail Kumari, SC 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the fact that the payment, as directed by this Court in the connected writ application, has been made, the grievance of the petitioner that full payment has however been not made, could have made sense had this Court had also quantified such amount. This Court had however never quantified the amount and therefore, there will be hardly any occasion for this Court to continue with this contempt application.

That being so, this contempt application, on account of the stand taken by the opposite parties with regard to payment

Patna High Court MJC No.5701 of 2013 (2) dt.06-02-2015 2/2 made to the petitioner to the extent it was admissible and payable, must be deemed to have become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.

Nothing said in this order, however, will come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing his claim of balance payment, if any in accordance with law.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U