Pushplata Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2577 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3475 of 2020 ====================================================== 1.

Pushplata Singh W/o Late Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, resident of MohallaIndustrial Lane, Dayal Enclave, Saristabad Road, at present Additya Kunj, Mohan Industries Lane, P.S.-Phulwari, District-Patna. 2.

Nirmal Kumar Sinha son of Late Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, resident of Mohalla-Industrial Lane, Dayal Enclave, Saristabad Road, at present Additya Kunj, Mohan Industries Lane, P.S.-Phulwari, District-Patna. 3.

Samrendra Krishna Sinha, son of Late Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, resident of Mohalla-Industrial Lane, Dayal Enclave, Saristabad Road, at present Additya Kunj, Mohan Industries Lane, P.S.-Phulwari, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Sri Ajay Kumar Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Kalambagh, Muzaffarpur.

3.

Sri Deependra Kumar Rajak, the Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division, Saraiyan Gandak Project, Muzaffarpur.

4.

Sri Chaitanya Prasad, Addl. Chief Secretary, Water Resources Dept. Secretariat, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Srivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Standing Counsel 11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 04-07-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties are present.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 15.03.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3475 of 2020 has been partly complied.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the order has been complied in its true spirit and there is no

Patna High Court MJC No.2577 of 2024(3) dt.04-07-2025 2/2 contempt.

4. In the show cause it has come that vide AnnexureR/1 salary has been revised and admitted dues has been calculated in light of Annexure-R/1 in which detailed chart has been annexed and payment has been made.

5. In response to the same, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is true that the payment has been made but not on the revised pay scale rather on the old pay scale the payment has been made.

6. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, this Court hereby dropped the present MJC application with liberty to the petitioners that if they further aggrieved, they may pursue before the Department/competent forum.

7. Accordingly, the present MJC application stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) ajay/- U