Raghu Banshi Pd. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3611 of 2012 ====================================================== Raghu Banshi Prasad S/O Late Roshan Rasad R/O Shahi Colony, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District - Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Shri A.B. Chaturvedi, Principal Secretary, General Administrative Reforms Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

3. Shri Rajiva Bhushan Sinha, Principal Accountant General, Bihar, Patna

4. Shri Anirudh Prasad Singh, The Director, Provident Fund (Finance Department) Pant Bhavan Bailey Road, Patna .... .... Opp. Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Bhai Desai For the State Mr. Rakesh Prabhat A.C. to S.C.9 For the Accountant General Mr. Ram Kinker Choubey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 18-02-2015 Heard the parties.

This contempt application is pending in this court wherein the petitioner has alleged non compliance of the order dated 6.4.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10533 of 2010. Earlier show causes and reply thereto have been filed by the parties.

Counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of the Court to paragraph 7 of the reply has submitted that the details regarding deduction from the salary of the petitioner for the period of 1990-91 is/are and as such the amount falling due and payable for the said period should also be calculated and paid to

Patna High Court MJC No.3611 of 2012 (5) dt.18-02-2015 2 / 2 the petitioner.

A.C. to S.C. 9 has produced today a copy of the authority slip for the aforesaid period issued in favour of the petitioner vide dispatch date 18.2.2015. Relying on the aforesaid written instruction it has been submitted that the admissible due(s) for the said period has also been calculated and authorized in favour of the petitioner.

Taking into account the aforesaid fact, this Court is satisfied that the present contempt application does not merit further persuasion. It is accordingly dismissed. If the petitioner disputes the computation of the amount for which authority slip has been issued the order present will not preclude him from filing appropriate representation in this regard before the competent authority.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U