Patna High CourtMJC/1190/2015disposed

Rina Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-12-15The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1190 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2257 of 2008 ====================================================== Rina Kumari, W/o - Sri Suresh Prasad Manjan, Resident of Subhash Chowk Masjid Road, P.S.- Birpur, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sri Laxmi Prasad Chauhan, District Magistrate, Supaul.

3. Sri Mohan Prasad, Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul.

4. Sri Prakash Ranjan Kumar, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa Division , Saharsa.

5. Sri Koushal Kishore Prasad, District Education Officer, Supaul. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 3520 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2257 of 2008 ====================================================== Rina Kumari W/o Sri Suresh Prasad Manjan, resident of Subhash Chowk, Masjid Road, P.S. Birpur, District - Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sri Laxmi Prasad Chauhan, District Magistrate, Supaul

3. Sri Harihar Prasad Yadav, Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul

4. Sri Prakash Ranjan Kumar, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa Division, Saharsa

5. Sri Sultan Ahmed, District Education Officer, Supaul ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vivekanand Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 15-12-2017 Keeping in view the order passed by the authority concerned on 25th of March, 2013 deciding the claim of the petitioners, now no further action is required to be taken in the

Patna High Court MJC No.1190 of 2015(4) dt.15-12-2017 2/2 matter. The petitioners may challenge the said order afresh in accordance with law. Merely because in between the petitioners were not reinstated and status quo ante was not granted, the petitioners may claim salary for the said period. For the said purpose, I do not find any reason to initiate action for contempt. As both the applications have been filed complaining breach of the same order, they are disposed of by the same common order.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Sunil/- U