Patna High CourtMJC/421/2014disposed

Rakesh Raman Sinha @ Rakesh Raman Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-05-08Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.421 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16684 of 2012 ====================================================== Rakesh Raman Sinha @ Rakesh Raman Singh S/O Late Nandu Singh R/O Vill and P.O. - Nerut, P.S. - Asthawan, Dist. - Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Sri Deepak Kumar the Principal Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

2. Sri Deepak Kumar the Principal Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna

3. Sri Rameshwar Singh the Principal Secretary Department of Finance, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

4. Sri Surendra Kumar the Director in Chief, Health and Family Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

5. Dr. Mrs. Sheokumari Prasad the Superintendent Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate.

For the O.P/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 08-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Having regard to very limited nature of the order passed in the connected writ application wherein this Court, in the order dated 04.07.2013 in C.W.J.C. No. 16684 of 2012, had directed the Director-in-Chief, Health Department to examine the alleged anomaly in the pay fixation of the petitioner made by the Superintendent of Nalanda Medical College and Hospital and that the Director-in-chief, by his order dated 06.05.2015, has passed a reasoned order recording certain findings against him as also

Patna High Court MJC No.421 of 2014 (2) dt.08-05-2015 2/2 taking action against others, who were given similar illegal benefit like the petitioner, this Court would not find any reason now to continue with this contempt proceeding. The contempt proceeding, in view of the compliance of the direction of this Court, must be closed.

3. That being so, the contempt application is accordingly disposed of, but nothing said in this order, however, will come in the way of the petitioner in assailing the aforementioned order dated 06.05.2015 before the appropriate forum/court.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U