Ashok Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5732 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10451 of 2003 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Singh S/O Late Tileshwar Prasad Resident Of Village Dadaur, Police Station Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna. At Present Residing At 55-Anand Vihar Colony, Ambedkar Path, Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar.

2. Mr. D.S. Ganwar S/O Not Known To The Petitioner Secretary, Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

3. Mr. Atul Kumar Sinha S/O Not Known To The Petitioner Additional Secretary, Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

4. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha S/O Not Known To The Petitioner Deputy Secretary, Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

5. Mr. Anil Kumar S/O Not Known To The Petitioner Joint Secretary, Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

6. Mr. Adesh Titarmare S/O Not Known To The Petitioner Director, General Provident Fund 4th Floor, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar S/O Not Known To The Petitioner Accountant General (A And E) Iind, Bihar, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 09-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the fact that not only the order by the State Government granting the benefit of promotion had been passed but in fact the Accountant General also had issued the revised authority slip on 02.03.2011 vide Annexures-A and B to the show cause reply, this Court would find that the Opposite Parties

Patna High Court MJC No.5732 of 2013 (2) dt.09-02-2015 cannot be held to have committed contempt. If the petitioner, thereafter wants the amount to be paid by the Treasury Officer and the Treasury Officer has not made such payment that was not the part of the direction given by this Court. Therefore, all that can be done while disposing of the contempt application is that if the payment of the petitioner has not been paid to the petitioner, he shall approach the Treasury Officer for such payment whereafter the Treasury Officer would be under an obligation to ensure that either the payment is made to the petitioner or reasons of non payment shall be communicated to the petitioner, but only within a period of one month of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Ranjan/- U