Rana Arjun Singh v. Dr. Lr.K. Mittal, The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5940 of 2012 ====================================================== Rana Arjun Singh S/o Late Ram Naresh Singh R/o Anuj 16, Gautam Green Cities, Near B.S.N.L. Advance Training Centre Booty More, Ramgarh Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. R.K. Mittal, the Vice - Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur
2. Dr. M.L. Aggrawal, the Registrar, R.A.U., Pusa, Samastpur
3. Devashish Dutta, Director Administrative, RAU, Pusa, Samastipur
4. The State of Bihar through Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, Agriculture Production Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna .... .... Opp. Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sriniwas Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Udai Shankar Singh, AC to G.A.2. For RAU : Mr. Arbind Ujawal, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 17-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and for the Rajendra Agriculture University. The contempt application has been filed claiming wilful disobedience of the order dated 27.6.2012 of this Court passed in CWJC No. 10791 of 2012. By the said order the University was directed to send the name of the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons to the State Government within four weeks and thereafter the State Government was to take a decision on the entire matter within a further period of three months. In the show cause filed on behalf of the University a stand
Patna High Court MJC No.5940 of 2012 (5) dt.17-02-2016 has been taken that the order has been complied with in its term and further that since the petitioner had applied for the benefit of CPF earlier he is not entitled to any other retiral benefit. In that view of the matter, since this Court had not decided the matter but left it to the decision of the State Government, I am of the opinion that no case for proceeding with contempt is made out. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties he may take recourse to appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievances.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/- U