Chandradoe Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2287 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5959 of 1993 ====================================================== Chandradoe Sharma S/o Late Bindeshwari Sharma, Resident of House no. 13/3R (Rental), Harmu Housing Colony, Harmu Chawk, P.O. Harmu, P.S.- Harmu Argora, District-Ranchi (Jharkhandi) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar 1(a). The State of Bihar

2. Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Dr. S. Sidharth, Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. Smt. Sujata Chaturvedi, Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. Smt. Sujata Chaturvedi, the Chairman, Lok Udham Beuro, with Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

6. Sri Amir Subhani, Principal Secretary, Samanya Prashan Vibhag (Karmik), Bihar, Patna.

7. Pankaj Kumar, Director of Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Panta.

8. Shaket Kumar, Director, Handloom and Sericulture, Industries Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

9. Sri Ranjeet Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Industries Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

10. B.N. Parasad, Managing Director, Bihar State Handloom and Handicraft Corporation Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna, Bihar.

11. S. Suresh Kumar, Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Shankar Kumar, AC to AAG 7 For the C :

Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv.

======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-08-2023 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar No.1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the Bihar State Handloom and Handicraft Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') is represented by Dr. Anand Kumar, learned counsel. The State is represented by Mr.

2/4 Shankar Kumar, learned counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed for initiating a contempt proceeding against the authorities of the Corporation on account of non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 19.03.1996 passed in CWJC No. 5959 of 1993.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner had since been suffering from mental illness and as such delay has caused in approaching this Court. However, as a special case this Court would consider to pass appropriate order for compliance of the order of this Court.

4. He fairly submits that in compliance of the order of this Court, the Managing Director of the Corporation has passed the order as contained in Memo No. 26 dated 18.02.1997 (Annexure-4). From perusal thereof, it appears that the petitioner has been found entitle for the benefits claimed for, but despite his entitlement, he has not been allowed all the benefits.

5. At this juncture, learned counsel representing the Corporation submits that the Corporation went in liquidation and thereafter claim of all the employees has been settled pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He further submits that the person whose claims have not been settled

3/4 they have approached before this Court and this Court in CWJC No. 387/2020, 7615, 7680, 7683/2020 vide order dated 08.03.2021 directed the Corporation to ensure payment of the remaining employees of the Corporation. In light of the order of this Court, a press communique has been issued in the daily newspaper and a request has been made to the concerned employees to submit their service record/relevant document in order to consider the grievance of the concerned employees. In the notice, by way of press communique, the name of the petitioner stands at serial number 77. He further submits that if the petitioner would file a fresh representation in light of the aforenoted press communique along with the relevant record/document his case would be considered and if any amount is still found due, the same would be paid within a reasonable period of three months.

6. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the present contempt petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Managing Director of the Corporation in terms of the aforenoted communique within a period of four weeks.

7. Needless to observe that if such representation is filed within the period prescribed, the claim of the petitioner

4/4 would be considered sympathetically and if found entitled, the same must be allowed in his favour.

(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR N.A.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 19.08.2023 Transmission Date N.A.