Dismissed

Sachidanand Pandit v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC13 Feb 2015Cont.(Cvl)/509/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition regarding non-compliance of a writ order, the High Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's grievance about MNREGA dues and pass a reasoned order within a specified timeline.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to consider the petitioner's representation regarding MNREGA dues and pass a reasoned order within four weeks; matter listed after eight weeks.

Sachidanand Pandit Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 509 of 2012

¶2

Sachidanand Pandit

¶3

… Petitioner Vs.

¶4

State of Jharkhand & Ors. … Opposite Parties

¶5

----

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

----

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Advocate For the opposite party : Mr. Abhay Prakash, J.C. to G.A.

¶9

---- Order No. 02 Dated 26^th June, 2014

¶10

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner for non-compliance of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 4112 of 2011 dated 19.12.2011 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner that may be filed with regard to his grievance of non-payment of dues under the MNREGA Scheme.

¶11

2. The petitioner is represented by the learned counsel Mr. Vaibhav Kumar and the opposite party-State is represented by the learned counsel Mr. Abhay Prakash, J.C. to G.A. 3. The opposite party No. 3 has filed a show cause dated 14.09.2012 along with number of annexures stating that regarding alleged irregularities, a criminal case has been registered against some Government officials and the said criminal case is pending.

¶12

4. In the writ petition, since direction has been issued to the opposite parties to consider the representation of the petitioner as to his grievance of non-payment of the dues under the MNREGA Scheme, the respondents-opposite parties herein are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. The petitioner shall file a fresh representation along with necessary documents supporting his claim and also enclosing a copy of this order before the opposite party No. 2-Deputy

¶13

Commissioner, Godda within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Deputy Commissioner, Goddaopposite party No. 2 shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶14

5. The matter be listed after eight weeks.

¶15

(R. Banumathi, C.J.)

¶16

Birendra/Brajesh

Sachidanand Pandit v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachidanand Pandit v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Kumar Vs Raja Ram Prasad and Ors.

Dr Lalan Choudhary and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Finance and Ors.

Surendra Nath Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

MD Kamal Uddin Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs Shri Ravindra Singh Managing Director Mineral Area Development Authority and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.