Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Braj Nandan Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 24 of 2004
---
1. Dr. Braj Nandan Verma
2. Dr. Radha Raman Sahay --- --- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shri A.K. Sarkar, Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The State of Bihar
4. Shri B.B. Srivastava, Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna
5. Shri Rajendra Prasad, Deputy Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
6. Dr. Dhurkheli Ram, Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of
Bihar
7. Shri R.K. Verma, Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna
8. Shri B. Lakra, Accountant General ( O & E), Jharkhand, Ranchi
--- --- Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vijoy Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate,
Bandana Kumari Sinha, Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
For the State of Bihar: Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A (Bihar)
For the Accountant General: Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate
---
20/ 11.11.2022 In the 5th Supplementary show-cause filed by the opposite party no. 4 on
05.11.2022, following statements have been made at paragraph-5 and 6, which
are as under:
5. That in compliance therewith, it is stated and submitted that
both the petitioners, they have already been paid their arrears of
admissible dues and in this regard the details have been
incorporated in a tabular sheet with respect to the two
petitioners, which would go to show the details of Sanction
Order Nos. / date of sanction, the bill gross amount, income tax
deduction, net payment, reference No. of the bill, and the Bank
transaction / UTR No. details, etc. and the same was circulated
under Memo No. 3657 dated 1st November 2022 issued by the
Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Animal Husbandry
Directorate, Bihar, Patna.
6. That after income tax deduction, a sum of Rs. 21,829/- was
transferred in the bank account of the petitioner no. 1 whereas
after income tax deduction a sum of Rs. 25,607/- was transferred
in the bank account of the petitioner no. 2.
2. Tabular sheet containing the details is enclosed as Annexure-A series.
This, according to the learned counsel for the State of Bihar, sets at rest all the
claims of the petitioners' arising out of the judgment under offence dated
27.11.2022 passed in CWJC No. 2685/1998 (R).
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that indifference
of the authorities of the State of Bihar and unnecessary litigation such as Civil
Review No. 68/2005 on their part has caused agonizing delay in actual
disbursement of the admissible service dues to the petitioners. He has also
stated that the authorities of the State of Bihar had not stated correct facts in the
review before this court such as disposal of S.L.P (Civil) No. 22414/2016.
4. The present contempt petition is one of the oldest case pending in this
court and relates to the year 2004. The entire chronology of dates and events
need not be reiterated here as the pendency of the contempt petition for 18 years
itself speaks of the delay in getting fruits of the judgment / order passed by the
writ court. The concerned authorities of the State of Bihar need to reflect upon
such an approach as more often, blame is cast upon the judicial system for the
delay. It is true that the judicial process consumes time, but if the concerned
authorities or stake holders are themselves responsible for the delay, they need
to introspect.
5. With these observations, the instant contempt petition is dropped. I.A.
No. 1419/2005 is closed.
Let copy of the order be communicated to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Bihar and opposite party no. 4 as well.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ranjeet/
