Patna High CourtMJC/2927/2016disposed

Krishna Chandra Verma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-01-25Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2927 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4074 of 2011 ====================================================== Krishna Chandra Verma, son of Late Ramawatar Prasad, resident of villageKhedayan, P.S. Andar, District-Siwan .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Mr. Dharmendra Singh Gangwar, Son of not known, Principal Secretary of Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna

2. Mr. Abdul Ahad Khan, son of not known , District Superintendent of Education, Siwan, now known as District Education Officer

3. Mr.

Yogendra Prasad, Block Education Extension Officer, Raghunathpur, Siwan

4. Mr.

Arvind Kumar Upadhyay, Block Development Officer, Raghunathpur, Siwan .... .... Opp.Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc22 Raghwendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-01-2017 Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to SC-22. The present petition has been filed with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding against Opp.Parties on an allegation of disobedience to an order dated 21.04.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4074 of 2011, by which this Court had quashed the order, contained in Memo No.397 dated 31.01.2011 and, thereafter, Respondents were directed to pay full salary and allowances for the suspension period with all other consequential benefits. In this case, a show cause has been filed on behalf

Patna High Court MJC No.2927 of 2016 (7) dt.25-01-2017 2/2 of Opp.Party no.2 , which indicates that arrear of salary and other consequential benefit have already been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact. However, he submits that some other retiral dues has not been paid to the petitioner. The Court is of the opinion that in the contempt proceeding this Court may not travel beyond the order of the writ court. The writ court has not passed order for grant of retiral dues. If the petitioner feels aggrieved with non-payment of retiral dues, he would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy. The petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U