Dismissed

Sunaina Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC3 Apr 2014L.P.A/185/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an oral order, the Patna High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a Sarpanch challenging an order directing honorarium payment to a Nyay Mitra. The court found the appeal was time-barred, rejecting the appellant's claim of ignorance due to the respondent's admitted service of relevant documents in February 2013.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Sunaina Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court LPA No.185 of 2014 (6) dt.03-04-2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.185 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15088 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Sunaina Devi Wife Of Awadhesh Singh Resident Of Village - Sheotar, Block - Mohra, District - Gaya .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner, Magadh Ranga, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya 3. The Block Development Officer, Mohra Block, Gaya 4. Panchayati Raj Padadhikari, Gaya 5. The Sub - Divisional Magistrate, Mohra, Khizarsarai, Gaya 6. Smt. Archana Sinha Daughter Of Sri B. Kishore Resident Of Mohalla - Katari Road, P.S. Civil Lines, District - Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Advocate Mr. Shankar Kumar, Avocate For the State : Mr. Pravin Kumar Verma, AC to SC 26 For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH) 6 03-04-2014 The appellant, who was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, has filed the instant appeal against the order, dated 07.02.2013, passed by the learned single Judge, in C.W.J.C. No.15088 of 2012 (Smt. Archana Sinha vs The State of Bihar & Ors), whereby the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohra Block, Khizarsarai, Gaya, to request the Collector of the district of Gaya to release fund for payment

¶4

Patna High Court LPA No.185 of 2014 (6) dt.03-04-2014

¶5

¶6

of honorarium to the writ petitioner with effect from 15.04.2008 and to recover the said amount from the Sarpanch (appellant herein) after following the procedure prescribed under the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.

¶7

2. Before coming to the question as to whether the order, dated 07.02.2013, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15088 of 2012 (Smt. Archana Sinha vs The State of Bihar and Ors), needs interfere in appeal, the following facts need to be taken note of:

¶8

(i) The writ petitioner, Smt. Archana Sinha, was appointed by the competent authority, on 15.4.2008, and when she went to submit her joining report, the same was not accepted by the Sarpanch and, in consequence thereof, the writ petitioner kept running from pillar to post and when no relief was given to her, she moved this Court by filing a writ petition, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 913 of 2012. A learned single Judge granted, by order, dated 05.03.2012, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 913 of 2012, liberty to the writ petitioner to file an application before the SubDivisional Magistrate, Mohra Block, Khizarsarai, Gaya, who, as per the Government resolution, dated 22.03.2007, was the prescribed authority to decide the complaint filed by persons appointed on the post of Nyay Mitra.

¶9

Patna High Court LPA No.185 of 2014 (6) dt.03-04-2014

¶10

¶11

(ii) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohra Block, Khizarsarai, Gaya, though found the writ petitioner’s appointment legal, rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of honorarium .

¶12

(iii) Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 15088 of 2012 aforementioned. A learned single Judge, having noticed that the writ petitioner was unjustifiably denied joining by the Sarpanch, directed by order, dated 07.02.2013, aforementioned, payment of honorarium to the petitioner and, in turn, recovery of the said amount from the Sarpanch. The writ petition has, thus, been disposed of by order, dated 07.02.2013, aforementioned, which stands impugned in this appeal.

¶13

4. We find that the present appeal has been filed 143 days after the prescribed period of limitation was over. The appellant-applicant submits that though she was made a party to the writ proceeding, she was not served with notice and, as such, she belatedly came to learn about the order of this Court, when she received the letter, dated 26.04.2013, issued by the Block Development Officer.

¶14

5. The counter affidavit, filed by the respondent No.6, however, belies the stand of the appellant-applicant that she was unaware of the order of this Court, for, it has been stated, in paragraph 4, that the respondent No.6 had

¶15

Patna High Court LPA No.185 of 2014 (6) dt.03-04-2014

¶16

¶17

sent a representation along with a copy of the order of this Court to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Neemchak Bathani, Khizarsarai, Gaya, on 28.02.2013, for accepting her joining and that respondent No.6, again, sent her joining report to the appellant, on 09.03.2013, in the light of the order of this Court. The said statements have not been controverted by the appellant and, hence, we find that the ground, taken by the appellant about the ignorance of the order of this Court, is incorrect.

¶18

6. In view of the above, the petition, bearing I. A. No. 766 of 2014, seeking condonation of delay, in preferring this appeal, is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.

¶19

(I. A. Ansari, J.)

¶20

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)

¶21

KHAN/-

Sunaina Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunaina Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhish Nandan Singh @ Sudheesh Nandan Singh Vs The North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. and Ors.

Amar Nath Jha Vs State of Bihar

Basudeo Kumar @ Basudeo Yadav Vs State of Bihar

Vinay Kumar Tiwary and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mithilesh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Deonath Pd. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.