Rajesh Kumar v. Md. Jainun Abdil Ansari And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3765 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9620 of 2011 ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar S/O Shri Parsuram Singh R/O Vill. and P.O. - Matasi, P.S. - Halsi, Distt. - Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Md. Jainun Abdil Ansari and Ors. son of not known , Managing Director Fort Area The Munger Jamui Central Co - Operative Bank Ltd. Th 2.

General Manager -In - Charge Kamledeo Prasad Singh, he Munger Jamui Central Co - Operative Bank, F 3.

Branch Manager Naresh Ram , Munger Jamui Central Co - Operative Bank Ltd., Sikandara Branch, P.O. a 4.

Nilesh Kumar Chairman, Munger Jamui Central Co-operative Bank . ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinod Gautam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2025 Heard Mr. Vinod Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This contempt application has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 28.11.2013 passed in CWJC No. 9620 of 2011 whereby, a direction was given to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of the order for regularisation either on the post concerned or any other equivalent post as has been done in Bikas Chandra Mishra's case, if the petitioner's claim is found on identical

Patna High Court MJC No.3765 of 2014(6) dt.29-07-2025 2/2 footing or on better footing than the case of the aforesaid Bikas Chandra Mishra.

3. Opposite party Nos. 1-4 has filed a show-cause online on 29.11.2022. Hard copy of the show-cause, however, is not on record. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has handed over a hard copy of the show-cause filed by the opposite party Nos. 1-4, which has been taken on record.

4. In paragraph No. 5 of the show-cause filed by the opposite party Nos. 1-4 it has been stated that in compliance of the order passed in the writ petition the case of the petitioner was considered and upon consideration the claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected, as his case was found to be not similar to that of the Bikas Chandra Mishra's case

5. In view of the above, I find that the order dated 28.11.2013 passed in CWJC No. 9620 of 2011 has been complied with by the opposite parties.

6. Accordingly, the contempt application stands closed and disposed off.

(Nani Tagia, J) Nishant/- U