Gaya Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3005 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10815 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Gaya Prasad Yadav S/o Late Banshi Singh Yadav Resident of Village Teni Bigha, P.S. and District Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Sri Anjani Kr. Singh, the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. Sandeep Pondrik, the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Housing, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Ajay Kumar Pandey, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. Ajay Kumar, the Chairman, C.A.R.E. Division, Cadre Division Committee, Bihar State Housing Board (Constituted under the Reorganisation Act 2000).

5. Anupam Kumar Suman, the Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Mangles Road, Patna.

6. Sri Hiralal, the Bihar State Housing Board through its Managing Director, Patna.

7. Uma Rashi Chatarjee, the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Adv For O.P. No. 4 to 6 : Mrs Binita Singh, Adv. For O.P. No. 7 Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Adv. For the State Mr. M.K. Upadhyay, A.C. to G.P.10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2015 Two separate supplementary show cause are filed on behalf of opposite party no. 7, who is present before this Court in person.

Heard the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 7 drew my attention towards supplementary show cause filed on

behalf of opposite party no. 7 on 24.02.2015 and submits that Para-6 of the aforesaid supplementary show cause shows that benefit of A.C.P. has already been paid to the petitioner in January 2010 itself and the aforesaid pleading is corroborated by the bank account of the petitioner which has been annexed as Annexure-X to the affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 7 today. Para-6 of above stated supplementary show cause as well as Annexure-X to the affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 7 today fortified the above stated contention. So far as interest on delayed payment of Gratuity is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 7 assures this Court that above stated payment shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from today as assured by the opposite party no. 7. It appears that except the interest on delayed payment of the Gratuity, there is no any other demand of the petitioner in this case.

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the opposite party no. 7 to make payment of interest on delayed payment of Gratuity amount to the petitioner within four weeks from today in the light of order dated 25.04.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10815 of 2012.

However, it is made clear that petitioner shall be at

liberty to file fresh contempt petition, if his grievance is not redressed by the opposite party no. 7 within the period as fixed by this Court.

The personal appearance of opposite party no. 7 stands dispensed with.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) SHAHZAD/- U