Prabhat Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1946 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1702 of 2018 ====================================================== Prabhat Kumar Sinha (aged about 59 years), Son of Late Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha Resident of Mohalla- Jhilganj Peepal Gali, Pahasi Road, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Gaya, at present posted as Block & Thana- Kutumba, District- Aurangabad, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Arbind Kumar Choudhary, The Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj, Govt. of Bihar at Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Belly Road, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vivekanand Vivek For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi - Aag 6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 12-12-2018 By an order dated 02.02.2018 passed in CWJC no. 1702 of 2018, the respondents were directed to look into the matter and pay the admissible salary to the petitioner within a period of four weeks and the writ petition was kept pending for compliance of the said order regarding payment of salary with stipulation that in case of any default, the petitioner may move by filing interlocutory application.

The aforesaid writ petition bearing CWJC no. 1702 of 2018 stands dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2018 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on account of the fact that the punishment order dated 05.07.2018 has already been passed in which, the punishment of censor and deprivation of salary for

Patna High Court MJC No.1946 of 2018(4) dt.12-12-2018 2/2 the period of absence have been inflicted upon the petitioner. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.10.2018 has granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order of punishment before the appropriate forum. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I find that since the main writ petition itself has been dismissed, the interim order dated 02.02.2018, violation whereof has been alleged in the present contempt petition has merged with the order dated 12.10.2018, which has already stood dismissed, hence nothing survives as far as the present contempt petition is concerned. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U