← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/338/2018disposed

Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidhut Parishad Field Kamagar Union Through Its Secretary, Bharat Choudhary v. Dr. V. P. Joy Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organization And ORS

2023-04-13Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar,Mr. Justice Harish Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.338 of 2018 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2594 of 2014 ====================================================== Bihar Jharkhand Rajya Vidhut Parishad Field Kamagar Union through its Secretary, Bharat Choudhary S/o Indra Deo Choudhary, R/o Village- Ram Basantpur, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Dr. V. P. Joy Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organization.

2.

Mr. S.K. Jha, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office-1, R- Block, Patna.

3.

Mrs. Manisha Sinha, The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office-2, R.Block, Patna.

4.

Manish Mani, The Assistant Prvident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, R.Block, Patna.

5.

Mr. R.K. Sinha, The Regional Provident Commissioner, Surya Complex, Laxmi Chock, Muzaffarpur.

6.

Mr. Pratya Amrit, the Chairman cum Managing Director, Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., Vidhut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Prashant Sinha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR) 13-04-2023 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this contempt petition.

Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned senior advocate for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 assisted by Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned advocate, states that there has been a substantial compliance of the order passed

Patna High Court MJC No.338 of 2018(11) dt.13-04-2023 2/2 by this Court.

On the basis of such statement having been made by the learned advocate for the Opposite Parties, there would not be any justification to keeping this contempt petition alive.

As such, the records are consigned and the petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) ( Harish Kumar, J) rohit/- U