Disposed

Bhuwaneshwar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Jun 2020WPC/7077/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition without adjudicating merit, granting liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh representation regarding unpaid dues and refund of security deposit. An order was directed within three months. The matter was disposed of via this order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation; Respondent No.3 to pass reasoned order within 3 months; Pay if due within 1 month thereafter.

Bhuwaneshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.7077 of 2019

¶2

¶3

Bhuwaneshwar Yadav .......... Petitioner.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar.

¶7

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Kuldangal, SivirNala, District Jamtara. .......... Respondents.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶10

		-----
For the Petitioner	:	Mr.	Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Advocate
For the State	:	Mr.	Atanu Banerjee, Sr. S.C.III
		-----
Order No.02			Date: 02.06.2020

¶11

This case is taken up through audio/video conferencing.

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to make payment of unpaid dues and the security amount deposited by the petitioner in relation to the earth work of Chain No.0.00 to 91.00 of “Saluka Distributary” under Minor Distributary Division, Kuldangal, District Jamtara.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in terms with Agreement No.02F2/2012-13 dated 20^th June, 2012 executed the aforesaid work under the said division. The petitioner completed the work in question in time and to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. The said fact would be evident from perusal of letter no.175 dated 10^th April, 2013 issued by the respondent no.3. Despite the satisfactory completion of the said work, the entire payment due to the petitioner has not been made to him and he is entitled to get certain more amount out of the work executed by him. The security deposit has also not been returned to the petitioner despite satisfactory completion of the said work. The petitioner represented the authorities including the respondent nos.2 and 3, however, no action has been taken in this regard. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶14

Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. S.C.III, submits that the petitioner has not specified in the writ petition as to what amount is due to be paid for the work in question executed by him. The amount of security deposit has also not been disclosed by him in the present

¶15

-2-

¶16

writ petition. However, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation on the present issue, the respondent no.3 will take appropriate decision in this regard.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.3. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.3 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on calling for the relevant records (if so required) shall pass reasoned/speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. If the respondent no.3 finds that certain amount is payable to the petitioner in relation to the work in question and the security deposit is to be refunded to him, the same shall be paid to him within a period of one month thereafter.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶19

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶20

Sanjay/

Bhuwaneshwar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuwaneshwar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Chandra Prabhakar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms

Vijay Kumar Nilam Vs the Chairman Jharkhand State Housing Board

Mala Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Revenue Registration and Land Reforms

Simmi Yasmin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Kumar Ojha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandra Sen Singh Vs the Union of India through Director General of Posts and Telegraphs