Disposed¶20

Kaushlaya Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Mar 2026Cont.(Cvl)/889/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt proceeding dropped — no contempt made out; family pension payment with 6% statutory interest; order dated 13.03.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 325 of 2024 contained no quantification of amount; respondents claimed entire Rs. 28 lakhs plus interest paid, petitioner disputed; Bank of India Ghaghra Branch; Treasury Officer Gumla; State of Jharkhand; petitioner Kaushlaya Devi; liberty to challenge decision; Ananda Sen, J.; High Court of Jharkhand; 20.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding dropped; petitioner granted liberty to challenge the decision of the opposite parties if aggrieved with the same. ¶20

Kaushlaya Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceeding dropped; petitioner granted liberty to challenge the decision of the opposite parties if aggrieved with the same.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt is made out against the opposite parties for alleged non-compliance with the Court's order dated 13.03.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 325 of 2024 directing recommendation of family pension payment with 6% statutory interest. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

On going through the order dated 13.03.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 325 of 2024, the Court finds that there is no quantification of any amount in the said order.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

As this is a contempt application, the Court cannot now assess and calculate the amount payable, specially when the opposite parties are submitting that they have paid the entire amount.

¶18

Key takeaways

Considering the aforesaid submission, no contempt is made out.ratio¶19
The contempt proceeding is dropped, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the opposite parties if at all aggrieved with the same.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Ananda Sen, J.) — Contempt proceeding (Cont. Case (Civil) No. 889 of 2024) arising out of the order dated 13.03.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 325 of 2024, whereby the opposite parties (State of Jharkhand; Treasury Officer, Gumla; Branch Manager, Bank of India, Ghaghra Branch) were directed to consider petitioner Kaushlaya Devi's case and recommend to the Bank payment of family pension along with 6% statutory interest. Respondents' counsel submitted that the entire amount of Rs. 28 lakhs and the interest had been paid; petitioner's counsel disputed this. Observing that the writ order contained no quantification of any amount, and that in a contempt application the Court cannot assess and calculate the amount payable when the opposite parties submit they have paid the entire amount, the Court held that no contempt is made out and dropped the proceeding, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the decision of the opposite parties if aggrieved.

¶1

2026:JHHC:7979

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 889 of 2024

¶4

------

¶5

Kaushlaya Devi, aged about 83 years, widow of Late Chandradeo Singh, resident of village Gamhariya, P.O. Gamhariya, P.S. Ghaghra, District- Gumla.

¶6

… … Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand.

¶9

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Topo, son of not known to the petitioner, Treasury Officer, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla, Jharkhand.

¶10

Mr. Mayank Mandulna son of not known to the petitioner, Branch Manager, Bank of India, Ghaghra Branch, P.O. and P.S. Ghaghra, District-Gumla, Jharkhand. … … Opp. Party(s)

¶11

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶12

------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C.(L&C)-II. Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C to S.C.(L&C)-II. For the Bank of India : Mr. Rahul Anand, Advocate. ------

¶13

13/ 20^th March, 2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The order dated 13.03.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 325 of 2024 by this Court was to effect that the opposite party were directed to consider the case of the petitioner and recommend the same to Bank for making the payment of family pension along with 6% statutory interest.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the entire amount has been paid to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 28 lakhs and the interest also.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes and submits that the entire amount has not been paid, some amount is remained to be paid.

¶18

While going through the order dated 13.03.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 325 of 2024, I find that there is no quantification of any amount in the said order. This is a contempt application. This court cannot now assess and calculate the amount payable specially when the opposite parties are submitting that they have paid the entire amount.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid submission, no contempt is made out.

¶20

Accordingly, this contempt proceeding is dropped with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the opposite parties if at all he is aggrieved with the same.

¶21

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶22

20.03.2026 Amar /- Uploaded on:-25.03.2026

Kaushlaya Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushlaya Devi 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

Anuj Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner, Palamu

Enamul Haque Vs State of Jharkhand

Prakash Kumar Pandit Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through Its Chief General Manager, Jharkhand Circle,Ranchi

Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jethan Ganjhu Alias Prameshwar Singh Alias Jethan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand