Sikandar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2728 of 2019 In Letters Patent Appeal No.78 of 2015 ====================================================== Sikandar Kumar S/o- Shiv Nandan Prasad Yadav Resident of Village and Post- Latouna, P.S.- Triveniganj, District- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the R.K. Mahajan, Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

Mr. R.K. Mahajan, the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Smt. Manjula Lal, the Director, Research and Training, H.R.D. Bihar, Patna. 5.

Saifuddin Ahamad, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koshi Division, Saharsa.

6.

Mr. Yogesh Mishra, the District Education Officer, Supaul. 7.

Mr. Yogesh Mishra, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Supaul. 8.

Smt. Punam Sinha, the Block Education Officer, Triveniganj, DistrictSupaul. 9.

Mr. Ramanand Ram, the Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat, Mirjawa, Block- Triveniganj, District- Supaul.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bijay Shankar Choubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shrimati Shilpa Singh ( Ga 12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 06-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment dated 12th December, 2018 the contempt whereof is alleged in this application.

A show cause has been filed by the opposite party bringing on record the order dated 25th May, 2019 passed by the

Patna High Court MJC No.2728 of 2019(2) dt.06-11-2019 2/2 District Programme Officer (Establishment), Supaul. Having perused the same, we find that the directions have been substantially complied with but the learned counsel contends that this is not in conformity with law.

If the applicant, in our opinion, is still aggrieved then it is open to him to question the validity of the said order on such grounds that may be available in law for which a writ petition can be filed. It is, however, evident from the last line of the order dated 25th May, 2019 that so far as the claim and payment of salary is concerned, the said decision shall be taken in the meeting of the Employment Unit.

We, therefore, consign this application with a direction that the Employment Unit shall take a decision with regard to the payment of salary as well as any other decision that may be required in the matter within six weeks of the passing of this order and intimate to the applicant.

In the event the applicant is still aggrieved, he can approach the Court by filing an appropriate petition. Disposed of with this observation.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/- U