Patna High CourtMJC/1237/2017disposed

Mr. Subhash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Governm

2018-09-12Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah,Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1237 of 2017 Arising out of Letters Patent Appeal No. 136 of 2015 =========================================================== Mr. Subhash Kumar, S/o Late Saryug Mahto, R/o- Maheshpur, P.S.- Mehdiganj, Patna City, District- Patna, at present Assistant Teacher, Sri Guru Govind Singh Girls HighSchool, Patna City, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, namely Mr. R.K. Mahajan, I.A.S.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, namely Rajeev Prasad Singh Ranjan.

3. The District Education Officer, Patna, namely Mr. Medo Das.

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna namely Mr. Mahesh Singh.

.... .... Opp. Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Opp. Party/s :

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD) Date: 12-09-2018 Heard counsel for the petitioner and opposite parties.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the opposite parties that payment of the consequential benefits in terms of order dated 18.07.2016 passed in L.P.A. No. 136 of 2015 have been ensured. Counsel for the opposite parties has also placed on record the payment order issued to the Patna Collectorate Treasury dated 12.09.2018

Patna High Court MJC No.1237 of 2017 dt.12-09-2018 2/2 authorising payment of an amount of Rs. 8,97,220/- in favour of the petitioner.

3. Order of the Division Bench having been substantially complied with, no further order is required to be passed in the instant contempt proceedings.

4. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the amount paid would be subject to verification with reference to his entitlement. That is an issue which the petitioner would have liberty to examine and if aggrieved, agitate in the appropriate forum.

5. The contempt proceedings are dropped.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) (Madhuresh Prasad, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U