← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/3622/2023disposed

Sudhir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-26Mr. Justice Harish Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3622 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14351 of 2022 ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar Son of Bhuneshwar Singh, Resident of Pakri, P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director-in-Chief, Medical Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4.

The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gaya.

5.

The Civil Surgeon, Gaya.

6.

The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 7.

The Civil Surgeon, Jehanabad.

8.

The District Treasury Officer, Gaya.

9.

The District Treasury Officer, Jehanabad.

10.

The District Provident Fund, Gaya.

11.

The District Provident Fund, Jehanabad.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, GA-8 Mrs. Seema Ghazala, AC to GA-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-04-2024 Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits at the bar that vide order dated 24.11.2023, the writ petition stood disposed of on the basis of the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit duly sworn by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gaya suggesting that substantive amount has been paid towards the retiral dues of the petitioner. However, learned

Patna High Court MJC No.3622 of 2023(3) dt.26-04-2024 2/2 counsel for the petitioner contended that still some of the amounts are required to be paid and, as such, a modification petition has been filed.

2. Needless to observe that filing of a modification application in a disposed of matter is ill advised.

3. The petitioner is at liberty to file a proper application.

4. The modification application stands disposed of. (Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U