Patna High CourtMJC/3529/2016disposed

Md. Ehtishamuddin v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-09-13Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3529 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5690 of 2011 ====================================================== Md. Ehtishamuddin, son of Late Abdul Qayum, Resident of Mohalla - Sadar Chowk, At and P.O. Dehri -On- Sone, District -Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, The Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. Mr. Ravi Mittal, The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

4. Mr. Bindeshwar Ram, The Chief Engineer ( South) Minor Water Resources Department, Sheikhpura , Patna 14

5. Mr. Sunil Kumar , The Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Sasaram ( Rohtas) ... ... Opposite party /s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Najmul Hodda For the Opposite party /s:

Mr. Durgesh Nandan AAG14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-09-2017 Heard Sri Najmul Hodda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Durgesh Nandan, learned Additional Advocate General No. 14.

The present petition was filed for initiating contempt proceeding against opposite parties on an allegation of willful disobedience to an order dated 27.01.2016 passed in CWJC No. 5690 of 2011 .

In this case earlier number of show- causes were filed. Finally, opposite party no. 2/ Principal Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar , Patna has filed

Patna High Court MJC No.3529 of 2016(13) dt.13-09-2017 2/2 show -cause on 6th September 2017 and in paragraph no. 12 of the show -cause it has categorically been stated that after approval from the Finance Department the petitioner has been allowed pay scale of Rs. 5000 - 8000/- with effect from 1.1.1996. However, it has been indicated that the same shall be dependent on the outcome of LPA, which has been filed against order of writ court.

Considering the facts disclosed in paragraph no. 12 of show -cause of opposite party no. 2, the court is satisfied that order of writ court has already been complied and as such, there is no need to keep the matter pending.

The petition disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T