Suresh Prasad Rai v. The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Agriculture
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2623 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6550 of 2023 ====================================================== Suresh Prasad Rai S/o Late Muneshwar Ray R/o Village- Rupapokhar, P.O.- Hethuaa Rajpur, P.S.- Rajpur, Barupur, District- Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
Dr. B. Rajender, The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4.
Shri Sanat Kumar Jaipuriar, The Director, Bihar State Seed and Organic Certification Agency (formerly known as Bihar State Food and Organic Certification Agency), Mithapur, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Mirityunjay Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP 14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-10-2025 Heard Mr. Mirityunjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, learned GP 14 for the State.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this Court has passed order to consider the representation of the petitioner and to ensure payment of due amount but instead of complying with the order, the opposite parties have preferred LPA No.1374 of 2023 against the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in CWJC No.6550 of 2023.
Patna High Court MJC No.2623 of 2024(4) dt.10-10-2025 2/2
3. Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State informs that though the LPA has been filed but there will be no impediment in considering the representation of the petitioner, if any filed and if the petitioner is entitled for any payment, the opposite parties are bound to make payment in accordance with the direction of this Court.
4. That being the case, mere filing of the LPA in such situation will not scuttle the right of the petitioner to be considered in accordance with law. I find that the order under contempt is yet to be complied by the opposite parties and same is required to be complied with first, so that petitioner may not face any further harassment. The State is a model employer, and in its federal frameworks the duties cast upon it, which must not be flaunted by its better-placed employees,who govern the State.
5. The present petition stands disposed of with expectation that justice will be done with the petitioner without any further harassment.
(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U