Most. Janki Devi v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4893 of 2012 ====================================================== Most. Janki Devi, widow of Late Rajpal Singh, R/O Village-Balaura, P.S.- Banshi Karpi, Distt-Arwal .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through Shri R.K. Singh, the Chief Secretary Govt. of India, New Delhi

2. Mr. H.C.Bhanot, Under Secretary, Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter Division, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi

3. The State of Bihar through Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, the Under Secretary, Freedom Fighter Division, Home Ministry, Old Secretariat, Patna

4. Mr. S. Srinivasan, Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Punjab National Bank R-Block, Patna

5. Mr. Ravi Kant Sinha, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Terk Telpa, Arwal

6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, District Magistrate, Arwal .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G. Mrs. Kanak Verma, C.G.C.

For the Bank : Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No.1, Advocate Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, A.C. to G.A.-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India, learned counsel for Punjab National Bank and the State.

Today, a submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the Union of India that till date the Union of India has not recognized the petitioner as a dependent and consequently, no order can be passed for making payment to

Patna High Court MJC No.4893 of 2012 (14) dt.11-05-2017 2/2 her, as is being sought for in the present contempt application. It appears from the order, which is under contempt before this Court, that there is merely a direction to verify the credentials of the petitioner before making such payment and no positive direction has been issued for paying the petitioner. It thus appears that no case under the Contempt of Courts Act is made out as on date. The contempt application, thus, stands disposed of.

However, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite party, be it the Union of India or the Punjab National Bank or the State of Bihar, it shall be open to her to seek appropriate remedy in any other proceedings, in accordance with law.

A photo copy of the instruction received by the learned counsel for the Union of India is being kept on the record of the present case.

(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U