Patna High CourtMJC/4408/2013disposed

Mannu Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-01-11Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4408 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20927 of 2012 =========================================================== Mannu Kumari, wife of Shri Sanjay Kumar, resident of Village - Jollha Bigha, Police Station -Tekari, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State Of Bihar

2. MRS. Bandana Preyasi, The Director, Integrated Child Development Service Directorate, Social Welfare Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

3. Sri Vivek Sinha, Divisional Commissioner - cum - Appellate Authority, Magadh Division, Gaya

4. Sri Bala Murgan , District Magistrate, Gaya

5. Sri Krishna Kanhaiya, District Welfare Officer, Gaya

6. Sri Kabir Saheb , District Programme Officer, Gaya

7. Smt. Bimla, the Child Development Project Officer, Block - Tekari, District - Gaya

8. Sri Niwas Babu , Block Development Officer, Block - Tekari, District - Gaya

9. Sri Pappu Pandey, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj - Palluhard, Block - Tekari, District - Gaya .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhoy Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Arbind Kumar, AC to GP 17 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-01-2017 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been filed alleging deliberate violation of the order of this Court dated 30.11.2012 passed in CWJC No. 20927 of 2012.

3. A show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 7, Annexure-C whereof being an order dated 01.12.2016 discloses that a final decision reinstating the petitioner on the post of

Patna High Court MJC No.4408 of 2013 dt.11-01-2017 2/2 Anganbari Sevika has been taken by the authorities and thus it is submitted that the order of this Court stands complied with.

4. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. In the above view of the matter, this contempt petition stands disposed of.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Ibrar AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 12.01.2017 Transmission Date N.A.