Dismissed

Kisun Giri v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Apr 2022Cont.(Cvl)/51/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dropped contempt proceedings after the State demonstrated compliance with a prior order regarding pensionary benefits. The petitioner was directed to provide documents for processing remaining dues within twelve weeks. An interim application was disposed of. This order explicitly states it is not a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped; petitioner to provide documents; State to process remaining dues within twelve weeks.

Kisun Giri Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 51 of 2021

¶2

Kisun Giri, aged about 59 years, son of Late Narayan Giri, resident of Village- Deori, P.O. & P.S. Deori, District- Giridih … Petitioner -Versus-

¶3

The State of Jharkhand

¶4

Nilam Eliyan Toppo, District Education Officer-cum-Member, District Education Establishment Committee, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Chas, DistrictBokaro

¶5

Smt. Renuka Tigga, District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub Divisional Education Officer, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro

¶6

… Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, AC to AAG-III -----

¶9

07/22.04.2022. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish

¶10

Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the State.

¶11

This petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶12

I.A. No.226 of 2022 has been filed for ignoring the surviving defect.

¶13

Since the show-cause of the State is on the record, this contempt petition has been entertained.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite party-State submits that in terms of the order passed by the writ court, the case of the petitioner has been considered and the amount of Earned Leave to the tune of Rs.7,72,200/and the amount of Group Insurance to the tune of Rs.1,77,759/- have been paid to the petitioner. He further submits that it has been disclosed in paragraph 8 of the show-cause that the amount of General Provident Fund has also been paid to the petitioner. He also submits that due to non-

¶15

-2-

¶16

cooperation of the petitioner, the answering opposite party has issued a letter no.256 dated 22.02.2021 addressed to the District Treasury Officer requesting to process and pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner and withheld the payment of benefits of gratuity till the recoverable amount of Rs.4,21,627/- against the civil work done by the petitioner is being deposited by demand draft with the concerned office. The petitioner was also requested to furnish No Dues Certificate so that remaining amount will be processed. He submits that the petitioner has not provided No Dues Certificate and in reply vide letter dated 21.02.2021 he has stated that since the contempt case has been filed, it is not desirable to provide the details.

¶17

In view of the above facts and considering the show-cause, it appears that there is compliance of the order.

¶18

The contempt proceeding is, therefore, dropped. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned opposite party and he will provide relevant documents and the opposite party shall process the remaining admitted dues within a period of twelve weeks.

¶19

Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Consequently, I.A. No.226 of 2022 also stands disposed of.

¶21

This I.A. will not be treated as a precedent for entertaining the contempt petition.

¶22

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶23

Ajay/

Kisun Giri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisun Giri 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

MD Mansur Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brajesh Sinha Alias Brajesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balchand Prasad Yadav Alias Balchand Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangra Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Semlal Manjhi Vs Mahadeo Sao

Vijoy Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand