Patna High CourtMJC/569/2016disposed

Yogendra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar Dr. Dharmendra Singh Gangwar Through Principal Secretary Human Resources Develop

2017-03-06Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.569 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2686 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Yogendra Mahto age about 67 years son of Late Dinesh Mahto, resident of Village- Begumpur, P.O.- Chhatuana, P.S.- Nawakothi, DistrictBegusarai, presently as retired Assistant Teacher Janata High School Chandpura (Begusarai).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Dr. Dharmendra Singh Gangwar through Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Bihar Patna. father's name not known to this petition,

2. Ram Bujhawan Chaudhary Son of Late Sarjugya Narayan Chaudhary, Director, Secondary Education Bihar, Patna.

3. Kapildeo Narayan Yadav S/o Raso Prasad Yadav, the District Education Officer, Begusarai.

4. Nirbhay Kumar father name not known to the petitioner Treasury Officer, Begusarai.

5. Sanjay Kumar father name not known to the petitioner Accountant General, Bihar,Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kishore Shahi For the State Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra: Fro Accountant General : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State including the Accountant General. This application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding for non-compliance of the order dated 21.4.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No.2686 of 2015 where it has been recorded that the petitioner has retired in the year 2008 and his all retirement benefit has already been paid and

Patna High Court MJC No.569 of 2016 (2) dt.06-03-2017 therefore, the matter stands closed.

If petitioner is of the view that he has not been paid retiral benefit of 29 years instead of pursuing this proceeding he should pursue a right proceeding. In the present proceeding this Court cannot initiate a contempt proceeding It is completely a misconceived proceeding. The, petitioner, if so advised, may take legal course in accordance with law.

Accordingly this application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U