Disposed¶21

Amit Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Apr 2026Cont.(Cvl)/1496/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court contempt case disposed without initiating contempt: alleged willful violation of order dated 09.09.2024 in L.P.A. No. 318 of 2015; petitioners Amit Kumar and Jitendra Kumar, sons of Late Sambhu Kant Dubey; retiral dues; Madhupur Nagar Parishad / Madhupur Municipality; Urban Development Department sanction and disbursement of Rs. 11,02,399/-; assurance of Rs. 10,000/- per month and preference in grants; coram Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava; decided 16.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding not initiated; application disposed of after recording counsel's assurances regarding payment of the balance retiral dues. ¶21

Amit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceeding not initiated; application disposed of after recording counsel's assurances regarding payment of the balance retiral dues.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether a contempt proceeding should be initiated against the opposite parties for willfully and deliberately violating this Court's order dated 09.09.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 318 of 2015. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The Court was not inclined to proceed further with the contempt application, which accordingly stands disposed of.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Grounds for disposal: the assurances advanced by counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 (that Rs. 10,000/- per month shall be disbursed to the petitioners and that they shall be given preference in receipt of Urban Development Department grants so that retiral dues are fully met), together with the substantial disbursement of Rs. 11,02,399/- during the pendency of the application.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt application (Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1496 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi) by Amit Kumar and Jitendra Kumar, sons of Late Sambhu Kant Dubey, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the State of Jharkhand and the Municipal Commissioner-cum-Administrator, Madhupur Municipality, for willful and deliberate violation of this Court's order dated 09.09.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 318 of 2015 concerning retiral dues. During pendency, Rs. 11,02,399/- sanctioned by the Urban Development Department was disbursed by the Madhupur Nagar Parishad towards the retiral dues of the petitioners' father. Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 pleaded financial constraints (employees retiring subsequently receive Rs. 5,000/- per month), assured disbursement of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioners, and undertook that the petitioners would be given preference in receipt of departmental grants so that retiral dues are fully met. Taking these assurances and the substantial disbursement into account, the Division Bench (Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.) disposed of the contempt application on 16.04.2026 without proceeding further.

¶1

2026:JHHC:10773-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1496 of 2025

¶3

¶4

Amit Kumar, aged 35 years, S/o Late Sambhu Kant Dubey, resident of House No. 24, Chitragupta Colony, Kundu Bangla, Madhupur, P.O. & P.S.-Madhupur, Dist.-Deoghar, Jharkhand

¶5

Jitendra Kumar, aged about 38 years, S/o Late Sambhu Kant Dubey, resident of House No. 24, Chitragupta Colony, Kundu Bangla, Madhupur, P.O. & P.S.-Madhupur, Dist.-Deoghar, Jharkhand

¶6

... ... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Surendra Kisku, S/o not known to the petitioner, at present posted as the Municipal Commissioner-cum-Administrator, Madhupur Municipality, Madhupur, P.O. & P.S.-Madhupur, Dist.-Deoghar, Jharkhand …… Opp. Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶11

-------For the Petitioners : Mr. Anjani Kr. Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, AC to SC(L&C)-III Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-III For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

¶12

¶13

Order No. 09/ Dated: 16^th April, 2026

¶14

Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned AC to SC (L&C)-III and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.

¶15

This application has been preferred by the petitioner for initiating a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for willfully and deliberately violating the order of this Court dated 09.09.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 318 of 2015.

¶16

During the pendency of this contempt application, an amount of

¶17

Rs. 11,02,399/- was sanctioned by the Urban Development Department, consequent to which, the Madhupur Nagar Parishad has disbursed the said amount to the petitioners towards the retiral dues of his father.

¶18

It has been submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel

¶19

2026:JHHC:10773-DB

¶20

appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 that considering the financial constraints, the Madhupur Nagar Parishad is undergoing, it does not have the necessary funds to immediately disburse the balance retiral dues in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that in fact, on account of the financial constraints being faced by the Madhupur Nagar Parishad, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month is being disbursed to the employees who have subsequently retired. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month shall be disbursed in favour of the petitioners in the near future and he has further assured us that in case, grants are received from the Urban Development Department with respect to the salary and retiral dues of the employees of Madhupur Nagar Parishad, the petitioners shall be given preference so that the retiral dues are fully met.

¶21

In view of the assurances and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and since during the pendency of this contempt application, a substantial amount of Rs. 11,02,399/- has also been disbursed in favour of the petitioners, we are not inclined to proceed further in this contempt application which accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶22

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶23

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶24

16.04.2026

¶25

Basant Uploaded on 18/04/2026

¶26

¶27

Cont. Case. (Civil) No. 1496 of 2025