Bijaya Mishra vs State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5375 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bijaya Mishra vs State Of Jharkhand on 29 August, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                                    ( 2025:JHHC:26314 )




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                           Cont. Case (Civil) No. 274 of 2024

            Bijaya Mishra, aged about 53 years, wife of A. Uday Bhashkar,
            resident of Flat No. 203, Surbhi Apartment, Near Manjushree Sweet
            Shop, South Office Para, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda,
            District Ranchi, Jharkhand                     ...    ...      Petitioner
                                       Versus
            1. State of Jharkhand
            2. Deepak Kumar Shrivastava, fathers name not known to the
               petitioner, Director, Indian Institute of Management, Ranchi, P.O.
               Kanke, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi           ...       Opp. Parties
                                       ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhouri Avinash Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate : Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate

---

21/29.08.2025 This petition has been filed alleging willful and deliberate

violation of judgment dated 30.01.2024 passed by this court in W.P.

(C) No. 6207 of 2017 passed by this court.

2. The learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that

50% back wages along with 6% interest has been paid and the writ

petitioner has been taken back in service. However, counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that the order of this court was pronounced on

30.01.2024 and the petitioner was directed to be taken back in service

forthwith, therefore from 01.02.2024, the petitioner is entitled to full

back wages but such payment has not been made to the petitioner. He

has also submitted that the petitioner has not been promoted and

therefore the grievance regarding continuity of service has not yet

been redressed. The fact also remains that LPA No. 160 of 2024 is still

pending.

( 2025:JHHC:26314 )

3. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is

of the view that the order passed by this court has been substantially

complied. If the petitioner has any further grievance, she may take

steps as may be permissible under law, but so far as the contempt

proceeding is concerned, this court is not inclined to proceed any

further. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit