Patna High CourtMJC/3596/2013disposed

Ajit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-03-16The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3596 of 2013 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10765 of 2010 =========================================================== Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Swaminath Prasad, Resident of Village- Sirsa, P.S.- Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Navin Kumar, The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. Sri Pankaj Kumar, District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Gopalganj

3. Mr. Udai narayan Jha, The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Gopalganj

4. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, The Block Development Officer, Sidhawalia, DistrictGopalganj .... .... Opposite Partries.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, AAG 8. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-03-2017 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10765 of 2010 was disposed of on 09.11.2011 directing the appropriate committee to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and take a decision in the matter by a speaking order.

2. Inter alia, contending that the order has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt and today, during the course of hearing, it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the application for grant of compassionate appointment has been considered and rejected on 15.01.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that it has

Patna High Court MJC No.3596 of 2013 dt.16-03-2017 2/2 not been communicated to him. However, a copy of the order is given to the learned counsel for the petitioner today in the Court.

3. Now, as the order in question has been complied with and after consideration of the application for compassionate appointment it has been rejected, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the aforesaid order afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, the application stands disposed of.

4. The document filed by the petitioner being copy of the show cause is taken on record.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Dilip, A.R.

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date