Awadh Kishore Pandey v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1526 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9683 of 2008 ====================================================== Awadh Kishore Pandey Son of Late B.D. Pandey, resident of Village- Rampur Mahesh, P.O.- Narayanpur, P.S.- Taraiyan, District- Siwan, presently residing at 2K/3 Harmu Houshing Colony, Harmu Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Khadya Bhawan, Patna- 1.
3. Mr. Sugandh Chturvedi, Chief of Administration, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Khadya Bhawan, Patna- 1.
4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Chief of Claim, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation, Ltd Khadya Bhawan, Patna- 1. ... ... Opp.Parties.
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amrendra Narayan Rai For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-05-2018 At the very outset, Sri Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Parties/Bihar State Food & Civil Supplied Corporation Ltd. submits that in view of the facts disclosed in the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 on 17th April,2018, it is evident that the order of the writ court has already been complied with in its letter and spirit, however learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the submission of learned counsel for the Corporation. He submits that while allowing the writ petition, this Court had allowed all consequential benefit, which has not been complied with. He further submits that the petitioner was also entitled to get
Patna High Court MJC No.1526 of 2017(9) dt.02-05-2018 2/2 interest on the amount, which was earlier illegally deducted from the salary of the petitioner, however without any interest payment has been made.
On examination of the material on record, I am of the opinion that such dispute may not be adjudicated in the contempt proceeding. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, if so advised. Considering the fact that the order of the writ court has already been complied with , there is no reason to keep the matter pending.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) nawalkrs/- U