Priya Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2143 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21427 of 2021 ====================================================== Priya Kumari Wife of Shashi Krishna Prasad, Resident of Village- Sorthi, Police Station- Dinara in the District of Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Mr. Pratya Amrit, son of not known to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

Mr. Pratya Amrit, son of not known to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Dr. Usha Kiran Verma, wife of not known to the petitioner, the Director-inChief (Nursing), Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4.

Mr. Birendra Prasad Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad. 5.

Mrs. Meena Kumari, Wife of not known to the petitioner, the Civil Surgeoncum-Chief Medical Officer, Kaimur at Bhabhua. 6.

Mr. Suresh Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, the Incharge Medical Officer, Referal Hospital, Navinagar in the District of Aurangabad. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Mujtabaul Haque (GP-12) Mr. Pranoy Kumar, AC to GP-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 25-07-2024 Herd the parties.

2. In CWJC No. 21427 of 2021, on 22.07.2022, the Court held that it cannot adjudicate enforceability of the letter and the petitioner is merely seeking to approach the authorities, the same is accordingly disposed of and if such application is filed, the respondent no. 3 [The Director In Chief (Nursing) Health Services, Bihar, Patna] should consider the petitioner's

Patna High Court MJC No.2143 of 2022(6) dt.25-07-2024 2/2 claim in accordance with law.

3. The last show cause of the opposite party No. 3, the same authority, has passed an order communicated vide memo no. 925(6) dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure R/2) which shows that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

4. Since an order has been passed by the concerned authority, the petitioner if so wants can agitate the matter by filing an appropriate petition.

5. Accordingly, MJC No. 2143 of 2022 stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U