Laxmi Narain Vishwakarma v. State Of Bihar And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2202 of 2010 ====================================================== Laxmi Narain Vishwakarma, son of Late Dhannu Vishwakarma, resident of Manoj Kumar Goswami, Jamalpur Dih, Ward No.12, Jamalpur, P.O. & P.S.-Jamalpur, District-Munger .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Bihar through Commissioner and Secretary, Nagar Vikas Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, District Magistrate, Munger.
3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar @ Danlat Paswan, Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Jamalpur, District-Munger.
4. Sri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Jamalpur, District-Munger.
.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.1, Advocate For the S t a t e : Ms. Alka Verma, A.C. to S.C.-17 For Jamalpur Nagar Parishad : Ms. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2017 It appears from the order dated 20.08.2009 passed in CWJC No.16450 of 2007 and its analogous cases that this Court had directed that the petitioner as well as others shall file representation before the Executive Officer, Jamalpur Nagar Parishad stating all their claims separately enclosing the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of their claims along with certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 20.08.2009. In the event of such representation being made, this Court had directed it to be disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation, so that the admitted claims of the
Patna High Court MJC No.2202 of 2010 (10) dt.23-02-2017 2/3 petitioner could be paid without delay. This Court had also left it open to the opposite parties that if any of the claims are found not admissible as per law, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner along with the reasons therewith.
A show cause has been filed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Jamalpur, Munger (Opposite Party No.4), in which they have annexed letters dated 10.12.2010, 19.02.2013 as also 14.03.2013. It appears from perusal of the said letters (Annexure A series) and particularly Letter No.532 of 14.03.2013 sent to the petitioner by speed post that an advance taken by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,89,147/- from the Nagar Parishad, Jamalpur has not yet been deposited by him, as a result of which his post-retirement benefits cannot be released. There is no answer to this letter by the petitioner and as such, for the reasons stated in the show cause, the opposite parties have not released the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
It thus appears that no case is made out under the Contempt of Courts Act as the order, which is made the subject-matter of the present contempt application, clearly indicates that if any of the claims are found not admissible as
Patna High Court MJC No.2202 of 2010 (10) dt.23-02-2017 3/3 per law, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner along with the reasons therewith.
It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to approach the opposite party-authorities once again for payment of pensionary benefits.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case under the contempt of Courts Act is made out. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T