← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/14432/2015disposed

Sheo Dayal Ray v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-09-10Mr. Justice Ramesh Kumar Datta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14432 of 2015 ====================================================== Sheo Dayal Ray, son of Late Mahendra Ray, resident of village- Kharauna, P.S. Tarari, District- Bhojpur, at present residing in Mohalla- Police Colony, Anisabad, P.S. Gardanibagh, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

5. The Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

6. The Director General of Prosecution, Bihar, Patna

7. The Finance Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

8. The Accountant General, Office of Accountant General, Birchand Patel Path, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar GP-19 For the Acct. General : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 10-09-2015 The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 8207/1996 against the order of his dismissal from service which was allowed on 27.9.2007 with a direction to pay the consequential benefits including increments and full salary for the period the petitioner was under suspension with reinstatement, etc. Thereafter the petitioner filed contempt application being MJC No. 224/2008 claiming disobedience of the said order. The same was permitted to be withdrawn on 18.3.2015 with liberty to the petitioner to file representation with regard to his remaining claims before the respondents.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14432 of 2015 (2) dt.10-09-2015 2/2 The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation filed by the petitioner has only been partly disposed of by order dated 21.8.2015 but with regard to the other claims there is nothing in the said order.

Let the respondents act in terms of the earlier direction of this Court dated 18.3.2015 and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in all aspects. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) S.Pandey/- U