Narsingh Mishra v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.965 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1270 of 2013 ===========================================================
1. Narsingh Mishra, Retired Accountant, Electric Supply Division, Aurangabad, Son Of Late Jag Narain Mishra Resident Of Village Karpi, P.O.- Jakhim, P.S. Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Shri Sandeep Poundrik, Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Null Government Of Bihar, Sarpentine Road, Patna800001
2. Shri Sandeep Pondrik, Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna- 800021
3. Ms. Kirti Kiran, Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna- 800021
4. Shri Pramod Tiwary, Dy. General Manager, Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
5. Shri Mohan Singh, Account Officer, Gaya Electric Circle, Katari Road, Gaya .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Kr. Verma, Advocate Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocate Mr. Vivek Anand Amiritesh, AC to SC-28 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-05-2017 On 2.8.2013, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was directed that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation before the respondent Company, his
Patna High Court MJC No.965 of 2014 dt.23-05-2017 2/3 grievance shall be considered and all admissible dues paid to him within a period of four months.
From the show cause filed by the respondents, it is seen that after disposal of the matter on 2.8.2013, revised gratuity of Rs.1,89,385/- was paid to the petitioner vide Cheque as detailed in Annexure-A on 24.2.2014, a sum of Rs.1,30,519/- as arrears of revised pay and a sum of Rs.59,289/- as revised leave encashment was paid to the petitioner vide cheque as detailed in Annexure-A dated 18.1.2014.
However, revised pension arrears as claimed by the successor was not paid due to not submitting the required form in accordance to the Rules. The show cause detailing all these facts have been filed by the respondents indicating how the claim and representation of the petitioner with regard to demands and claims have been settled.
That being so, now it is not appropriate to initiate any action for contempt.
In case the petitioner or his successor has any grievance still subsisting pursuant to the compliance reported by the respondents, he may initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law, but in the light of the nature of the order passed in the writ
Patna High Court MJC No.965 of 2014 dt.23-05-2017 3/3 petition and the compliance reported by the respondents, it is not a fit case where action for contempt can be initiated. The contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 25.5.2017 Transmission Date N/A