Dr. Nand Kishore Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1995 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18117 of 2017 ====================================================== Dr. Nand Kishore Singh Son of Late Matuk Singh R/o At.- Gopalpur, P.O.- Naurangia via Gulwara Madhuban, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

Sri Pratyaya Amrit, The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Sri Ram Ishwar, the Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Sri Ravindranath Upadhyay, the Under Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

Sri Ram Ishwar, The Director in Chief, AYUSH, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

6.

Sri Ravindra Kumar Sinha, the Director, (Ayurved), AYUSH Sector, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 7.

Sri Bijay Kumar Pathak, the Treasury Officer, Bihar, Patna. 8.

Shri Ramawatar Sharma, the Accountant General (A and E), Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vivek Anand Amritesh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nagendra Prasad Yadav (Sc23) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 18-07-2025 The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 7.5.2018, passed in CWJC No. 18117 of 2017, the case of the petitioner was considered by the opposite parties and thereafter, his date of retirement has been shifted from 62 years to 65 years of age and accordingly the salary and allowances for the period November, 2011 to

Patna High Court MJC No.1995 of 2022(4) dt.18-07-2025 2/2 October, 2014, totalling to a sum of Rs. 34,79,696/- has also stood paid to the petitioner, hence, it is submitted that the judgment of this Court has stood complied with. 2.

This Court finds that neither the petitioner is being represented by any counsel nor any rejoinder affidavit has been filed, rebutting the aforesaid aspect of the matter put forth by the opposite parties, hence there is no reason to disbelieve the contentions made on behalf of the opposite parties. 3.

Thus, this Court is satisfied that the judgment of this Court dated 7.5.2018 has stood complied with, hence the present contempt petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U