Prakash Chandra Adhikari Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 442 of 2024 With

¶2

I.A. No. 5864 of 2024

¶3

Prakash Chandra Adhikari aged about 62 years,

¶4

Kishore Kumar Das, aged about 57 years Both sons of Late Premanand Adhikari

¶5

Prabha Devi, aged about 65 years, D/o Late Premanand Addhikari W/o Shambhu Nath Shrawak All Resident of Village Brahman Tola, Tamar, P.O. and P.S. Tamar, Dist. Ranchi

¶6

Rita Devi, aged about 46 years, wife of Late Santosh Kumar Adhikari @ Santosh Kumar Manjhi

¶7

Badal Kumar Adhikari, aged about 23 years, son of Late Santosh Kumar Adhikari @ Santosh Kumar Manjhi Both reside at Bramhan Tola, Tamar, P.O. and P.S. Tamar,

¶8

Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand) (Petitioner no. 4 and 5 impleaded vide order dated 17.01.2025)

¶9

… … Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand

¶12

Sri Rahul Kumar Sinha, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi

¶13

… … Opp. Parties ---

¶14

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Jai Prakash Sahu, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sushant Kumar : (A.C. to S.C. II)

¶17

¶18

I.A. No. 5864 of 2024

¶19

05 /17.01.2025 This interlocutory application has been filed by mentioning that the petitioners herein had one more brother namely Santosh Kumar Adhikari who expired on 25.05.2023. The death certificate has been placed on record.

¶20

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection with regard to addition of legal heirs of Santosh Kumar Adhikari as petitioners whose details has been given in paragraph 4 of the interlocutory application which is as under:-

¶21

(i) Rita Devi, aged about 46 years, wife of Late Santosh Kumar Adhikari @ Santosh Kumar Manjhi

¶22

(ii) Badal Kumar Adhikari, aged about 23 years, son of Late Santosh Kumar Adhikari @ Santosh Kumar Manjhi Both reside at Bramhan Tola, Tamar, P.O. and P.S. Tamar, Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶23

3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5864 of 2024 is allowed.

¶24

4. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead the legal heirs of Santosh Kumar Adhikari as petitioner nos. 4 and 5 respectively in the cause title in red ink during the course of the day.

¶25

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 442 of 2024

¶26

5. In view of the order of assignment by Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 10.01.2025 the defect no. 9 is ignored for the present.

¶27

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 01.02.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5398 of 2006 has not been complied in letters and spirit in as much as the pension has not yet been given to the petitioner.

¶28

7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that in the writ order, the order of the authority dated 29.09.2005 has been quashed. The writ order has attained finality and thereafter one order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi contained in memo no. 1073 (ii) dated 13.12.2024 observing that the petitioner is entitled for pension. The learned counsel submits that he has received instruction that the documents for quantification of pension has already been forwarded to the A.G. Office and the process is likely to take around three weeks’ time and the moment the needful is done by the A.G. Office, the pension will be released. He has further submitted that the legal heirs of the deceased employee are the petitioners before this court and once the pension is sanctioned and the arrear is calculated, the petitioners will have to do the needful to get the benefit out of such order. He submits that for this purpose, the petitioner will have to approach the Deputy Commissioner.

¶29

8. Considering the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has already taken a decision that the pension is payable and it has also been submitted that the matter has been forwarded to the A.G. Office for needful, this court is not inclined to proceed any further in the

¶30

2

¶31

contempt proceeding. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped.

¶32

9. Apparently, the concerned employee (the writ petitioner) has expired and the legal representatives are before this court. It is for the legal heirs/legal representatives to approach the Deputy Commissioner for needful and bring this fact to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner.

¶33

10. It is expected that the grievance of the petitioners will be taken to a logical end as expeditiously as possible.

¶34

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶35

Binit

¶36

3

Prakash Chandra Adhikari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chandra Adhikari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandru Mahato Vs Hublal Mahato And Anr.

Sudip Banerjee Vs Pradip Kr Mullick

Nutan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Transport

Sanjeet Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs Smt Kanta Jain

Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Tourism Arts Cultur, Sports and Youth Affairs