Dismissed
Randhir Dubey v. Arbind Kumar Singh and Ors.
Patna HCMJC/394/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.394 of 2015 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19996 of 2011
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Dubey For the Opp-party No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh For O.P. No.4 : Mr. Madhav Krishna,
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER
7 22-02-2017 Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 has informed that the order of this Court has been fully implemented inasmuch as the amounts of leave encashment and gratuity have already sanctioned, with respect to which Cheque issued on 20.02.2017 bearing No. 010582 has been produced before this Court. The said Cheque has been handed over to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2
So far as arrears of salary is concerned, another Cheque dated 21.02.2017 bearing No. 010583 worth Rs. 1, 00791/- has been produced, which has also been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Cheque bearing No.010584 worth Rs. 10,000/- has been produced against the cost awarded by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2014, passed in CWJC No. 19996 of 2011. The said cheque has also been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Since the order of this Court has been complied with, in view of the stand taken on behalf of the Opposite parties, I do not think that any case of deliberate disobedience of this Court’s order is made out.
Learned Counsel for the Opposite parties has, however, submitted that a review application has been filed seeking review of the same order dated 09.10.2014, being Civil Review No. 47 of 2017. He submits that compliance of the order of this Court dated 09.10.2014 may not prejudice the petitioner’s case in said Civil Review No. 47 of 2017. It goes without saying.
So far as the petitioner’s provident fund amount is concerned, learned Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organization ( Opposite party No.4) has submitted that a sum of Rs. 7,61,266/- has been paid to the petitioner on 11.01.2011 itself. There is no direction in the said order for
3
payment of pension to the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the Provident Fund Organization has, however, submitted that no application has so far been submitted by the petitioner under in Form 10-D of the Rules.
Be that as it may, nothing remaining to be done in the present which is accordingly disposed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
ArunKumar/-
U
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Randhir Dubey
Arbind Kumar Singh
Md. Mahir
Mithlesh Srivastav
S.k. Jha
The State of Bihar
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court