Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through Anjani Kumar Singh, The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1827 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7450 of 2016 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar son of Kuldip Barai, resident of Village- Satsanda, P.S. Halsi Ramgarh, Dist- Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Anjani Kumar Singh, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar Son of not known, Patna.

2.

The State of Bihar, through Sanjay Kumar the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, son of not known, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The State of Bihar, through Lokesh Kumar Singh Secretary, Department of Health Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Dr. Kaushal Kishore, the Joint Secretary, Department of Health son of not known, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

Ravindra Kumar Sinha, the State Drug Controller, Bihar son of not known, Patna.

6.

K.P. Sinha, the Deputy Director Pharmacy, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

7.

Kundan Kumar the District Magistrate son of not known, Nalanda. 8.

Shri Shishir Kumar Sinha, the Chairman the Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lalit Kishore, AG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has been reinstated and also been paid his consequential benefits as informed through the third show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 today. According to learned counsel for the State, the order of this Court is complied. Contesting the position it is stated by Mr.

Patna High Court MJC No.1827 of 2018 dt.27-03-2019 2/2 Ranjeet Kumar that the reinstatement is on a lower post and even the quantum of financial benefits is disputed. I have considered the submissions to opine that even if the petitioner has reasons for grievance on the post reinstated, this cannot be an issue of contempt and thus this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned and who shall examine the grievance raised and dispose of the same in accordance with law. As regarding the dispute on calculation of the back wages, we give liberty to the petitioner to represent before the authority concerned who shall examine each the grievance and dispose of the same. Let the disposal of the grievance be by speaking order to be passed within 6 weeks of the raising of the grievance.

With the observations above, this contempt application is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U