Patna High CourtL.P.A/762/2014dismissed

The State Of Bihar And ORS v. Arvind Kumar Chaudhary

2017-03-18Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.762 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12827 of 2008 ===========================================================

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna

2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Krishi Udyog Bhawan, Sinha Library Road, Patna

3. The Secretary, Bihar State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Krish Udyog Bhawan, Library Road, Patna

4. The Regional Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, R. Block, Road No. 6, Patna .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Shail Devi, wife of Late Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, resident of village - Kurson, P.O. Chuni, P.S. Madhepur, District - Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal Mr. Bipin Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Rishit Deo Kumar Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 18-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the private-respondent.

Since the private-respondent is dead, a substitution petition has been filed. I. A. No. 1930 of 2017 is allowed. Let Shail Devi, the wife of the erstwhile employee, be substituted.

Heard counsel for the appellants and the counsel for

Patna High Court LPA No.762 of 2014 dt.18-03-2017 2/2 the legal heir.

The appeal is dismissed, because the Learned Single Judge has only given a direction to calculate and pay the rightful dues of the erstwhile employee and it is an accepted position that such amounts are due and has been specified in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, dated 27.08.2012.

There is nothing to interfere with such a direction, as there is no legal infirmity.

Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) SKM/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE Uploading Date 20.03.2017 Transmission Date