Kumari Purnima v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.66 of 2018 In Letters Patent Appeal No.961 of 2013 ====================================================== Kumari Purnima Wife Of Late Pawan Kumar Singh, Resident Of VillageNew Sipahi Tola, P.S.- K.Hat, Distt.- Purnia at Present Working as Nagar Teacher, Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya Dilawarganj, Prakhand- Kishanganj, Previously working at Jagannath Adarsh Middle School, Kishanganj, Block and District- Kishanganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.
Sri Aamir Subhani, The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Gov 3.
Sri Gufran Ahmad, The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. o 4.
Sri R.K. Mahajan, The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5.
Sri Pankaj Kumar Dikshit, District Magistrate-cum-Chairman of District Compassionate Appointment Co 6.
Sri Vishwanath Sah, District Education Officer, Kishanganj. 7.
Sri Devendra Kumar Jha, District Programmer Officer, Formerly District Superintendent of Education- ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arvind Kumar Varma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey - Aag 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 30-11-2023 The present MJC is filed for non-compliance of the order dated 03.10.2017 passed in LPA No. 961 of 2013.
2. The operative portion of the order dated 03.10.2017 is as under:-
Patna High Court MJC No.66 of 2018(4) dt.30-11-2023 2/2 "Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with a direction to the State Government to consider the case of the appellant with regard to grant of pay scale in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mukesh (Supra) and take a decision within a period of two months and communicate it to the appellant. Needless to emphasize that, if aggrieved, the appellant shall be at liberty to take recourse in accordance with law."
3. Respondents have passed speaking order that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought and it has been rejected on 15.12.2017. Therefore, the present MJC-contempt petition stands dropped, reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the rejection order, in accordance with law. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) abhishekkr/- U