Jharkhand High Court
Chandra Kishore Mishra vs State Of Jharkhand on 20 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 635 of 2022
Chandra Kishore Mishra, aged about 66 years, Son of late Yamuna
Mishra, Resident of 146, Tea Garden Bargawan, Namkom, P.O. &
P.S. - Namkom, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834010
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The State of Jharkhand represented through Rajesh Sharma
Secretary, Son of not known to the petitioner, Secretary, Human
Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand,
P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. Sunil Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted
as Director (secondary Education), Human Resource Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. Pushpa Kujur, daughter of not known to the petitioner, presently
working and posted as Regional Deputy Director of Education,
South Chhotanagpur Division, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi,
Jharkhand
5. Kamla Singh, daughter of not known to the petitioner, presently
working and posted as District Education officer, Ranchi, P.O. &
P.S. - Sadar, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand
... ... Contemnor/Opp. Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Kr. Mishra, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, Advocate
---
07/20.07.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of order
dated 23.03.2021 passed in W.P.(S). No.2763 of 2009. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner
is covered by the judgment in the case of Arti Thakur and Ors. Vs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2010 (3) JCR 418 (Jhr) and in
the said order, the respondents were directed to extend the same and
similar benefits which were extended to the petitioner of the case of
Arti Thakur (supra) and refund the amount within a period of 4
months as was done in the said case. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the bill relating to the period prior
15.11.2000 amounting to Rs.96,849/- has not been paid to the
petitioner, but the petitioner has been paid only arrear from
15.11.2000 to October, 2016 for an amount of Rs.4,12,784/-.
3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the
order of this Court has been complied and as per the show cause,
arrears from 15.11.2000 to October, 2016 has been paid.
4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that in the case of Arti Thakur, entire arrears were to be paid. A copy
of the said order has been produced before this Court. Upon perusal of
the order passed in the case of Arti Thakur and upon hearing the
learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not clear from that order as to
the period for which the order was passed by this Court.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to proceed
any further in connection with the grievance of the petitioner relating
to the period prior to creation of State of Jharkhand i.e. prior to
15.11.2000. Accordingly, the present contempt proceeding is hereby
dropped. However, it will be open to the petitioner to raise his
grievance in connection with the period prior to 15.11.2000 in
accordance with law.
6. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
whatever benefit has been given to the petitioner by the respondents,
the same has also not been taken to a logical end in as much as the
consequent revision of pension has not been done because the
respondents have not forwarded it to the office of Accountant General.
7. In response, learned counsel for the Opposite parties has
submitted that he shall take up the matter with the Opposite parties
and needful will be done, if not already done.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
