← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/2597/2018disposed

Shailendra Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through Sri Sanjay Kumar, The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Governm

2019-06-19Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2597 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3303 of 2016 ====================================================== Shailendra Prasad Yadav S/o Late Jamun Prasad Yadav, R/o Vill.- Narthura, P.O.- Bhagipur, P.S.- Alamnagar, District- Madhepura, At present AddressMadhepura, Jai Prakash Nagar, Ward No. 6, P.S. and District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Sri Sanjay Kumar, the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Governm 2.

Dr. R.N. Pandey, Director In Chief, Health Directorate, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

3.

Sri Navdeep Shukla, District Magistrate, Madhepura. 4.

Dr. Shailendra Kuamr, Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhepura.

5.

Sri Anil Kumar, District Treasury Officer, Madhepura. 6.

Dr. Lalan Kumar Laxman, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Murho, District- Madhepura ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mrigendra Pratap Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Bihari Sinha - GA 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 19-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By the order of this Court passed on the writ petition, this Court had directed Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhepura to consider the grievance of the petitioner regarding non payment of salary which grievance of the petitioner on consideration has been disposed of by the order bearing Memo No.937 dated 11.10.2018 which does not satisfy the petitioner as according to him the period for which the

Patna High Court MJC No.2597 of 2018(3) dt.19-06-2019 2/2 salary is denied, is not justified. In my opinion, the issue as regarding the merit of the order cannot be examined in a contempt jurisdiction and if so aggrieved by the order the petitioner if advised, would be at liberty to raise his grievance before the appropriate forum by filing appropriate application. With the liberty so given, the contempt application is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U