Birendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3337 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12695 of 2010 ====================================================== Birendra Prasad, S/O Late Ramchandra Prasad Resident Of VillageDhankutwa, P.S- Balthar, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Dr. Deepak Prasad, The Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar Patna- Cum- Chairman, Water Development Resources, Patna.

3. Sri R.P. Mahto, Project Co- Ordinator- Tube Well, Division, Patna.

4. Sri Kamata Prasad, Managing Director, Water Development Corporation, Bihar, Aaj Daroga Prasad Rai Path Surpentine Road, Patna.

5. Sri R.P. Mahto, Engineer- In- Chief, Tube- Well Prabhag, Vishwasaraiya, Bhawan, Patna.

6. Sri Narayan Paswan, Chief Engineer, Tubwell, Prabhag, Muzaffarpur.

7. Sri Arun Kumar, Chand, Superintending Engineer, Circle Damu Chak, Muzaffarpur.

8. Sri Kameshwar Choudhary, Executive Engineer, Tub-Well Division, Bettiah, West Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ankit Katriar, AC to AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-11-2018 In view of the statements made in the 3rd supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party no.8 wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioner has already been given the benefit of A.C.P. vide Annexure-S/7 and that the salary of the petitioner will be fixed again and after verification by the District Accounts Officer, the difference of salary of the petitioner will be calculated and paid to him at the earliest within a

Patna High Court MJC No.3337 of 2013 (11) dt.22-11-2018 period of three weeks, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that instead of pressing the present contempt application, he may request this Court to dispose it off giving him liberty to challenge the order granting ACP to the petitioner wherein the date of the petitioner's appointment has been taken as 01.05.1980 instead of his initial appointment in the work charge establishment as daily wager.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this contempt application is disposed off with liberty as prayed for on behalf of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State is present.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U