Remanded

Sri Mahabir Prasad v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC15 Jul 2016Cont.(Cvl)/727/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding non-payment of retirement benefits, the court issued a notice to specific respondents to appear personally, rejecting arguments about the late formation of the Corporation and the applicability of the Bihar Re-organization Act. The matter was post-poned to October 5, 2012.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued under Rule 393 of Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001 to respondents to appear personally on the next date.

Sri Mahabir Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 727 of 2010 Sri Mahabir Prasad ...... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & ors. ...... Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL

¶3

-------For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocate For State of Jharkhand : J.C. to G.A. For State of Bihar: Mr. S.P.Roy (G.A.-Bihar) --------

¶4

Order No. 20: Dated 21st September, 2012 Per D.N.Patel, J.

¶5

The present contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner for deliberate violation of the order, passed by this Court dated 13th January, 2010 in W.P.(S) No. 3167 of 2008.

¶6

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the show cause filed by the opposite parties, it appears that opposite party nos. 3, 4 and 5 have paid 50% of retirement benefits to the present applicant, who is original petitioner and rest 50% of the retirement benefits has to be paid by the Jharkhand State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

¶7

Learned counsel for opposite party no.6 submitted that Jharkhand State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has come into existence in the year, 2011 whereas the petitioner as retired on 31st May, 2005.

¶8

I, therefore, issue notice in Form No. 1 under Rule 393 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001, upon opposite party nos. 3, 4 and 5, who shall remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 3, 4 and 5 has relied upon Section 41 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, which has nothing to do with the present controversy at all. The Jharkhand State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. came into existence after approximately half a dozen years from the year in which the petitioner has retired. Had the retirement benefits been paid on the date on which the petitioner had retired, this dispute regarding payment of retirement benefits by the Jharkhand State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. would not have arisen at all. Unnecessarily, hue and cry is being made by opposite party nos. 3, 4 and 5 that Jharkhand state Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has changed the nomenclature of the

¶10

¶11

bank account of opposite party nos. 3, 4 and 5.

¶12

This argument is not accepted by this Court. The aforesaid notice is hereby issued and the officers shall remain present personally before this Court on the next date of hearing at 10.30 a.m.

¶13

Post this matter on 5th October, 2012.

¶14

( D.N. Patel, J. )

¶15

A.K.Verma/

Sri Mahabir Prasad v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahabir Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Triloki Mishra Vs Shri Ravindra Singh and Anr.

Om Prakash Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Das Vs Smt Alka Tewari the Secretary Forest and Environment Department and Anr.

Binay Kishore Prasad Vs the State of Jhakrhand and Ors.

Binoy Dutta Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Kusum Devi Vs the State of Jhakrhand and Anr.