Dilip Kumar Mahto @ Dilip Kumar Nirala Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Dilip Kumar Mahto @ Dilip Kumar Nirala Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as are otherwise available under the law for redressal of his subsisting grievance, if any; no compensation or additional wages awarded by the Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for having been kept in jail custody beyond the sentence awarded to him. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The disclosure in the counter affidavit concerning the petitioner's remuneration, deductions and payments was not controverted by the petitioner, inasmuch as no rejoinder affidavit was filed.

Key takeaways

On that basis the Court deemed it fit and proper to dispose of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to avail such other remedies as are otherwise available under the law for redressal of any subsisting grievance; no compensation was awarded by the Court.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21158 of 2018, High Court of Judicature at Patna, oral order dated 25-09-2024 of Mohit Kumar Shah, J. The petitioner sought (i) compensation for being kept in jail custody beyond the sentence awarded by judgment and order of sentence dated 11.7.2002 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No. 278/01/84/01, and (ii) arrears of wages for the period 7.12.2000 to 17.9.2017 during which he suffered his sentence. Counsel for the Respondent-State, invoking paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner's total remuneration for 2787 days of work was Rs. 53,252/-, of which Rs. 12,610/- was deducted as victim compensation and the balance Rs. 40,682/- had already been paid, and that any subsisting grievance could be pursued through remedies available under the law. The petitioner filed no rejoinder affidavit and did not controvert this disclosure. Finding the matter uncontested, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek redress of any subsisting grievance through other lawful remedies; no compensation was awarded by the Court. Impugned-order field left null as no decision was identified in the text as being under challenge; no statutes or precedents were cited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21158 of 2018

======================================================

Dilip Kumar Mahto @ Dilip Kumar Nirala Son of Late Asharfi Mahto Resident of Village- Parmanandpur,Police Station-Dumra,Distt.-Sitamarhi

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.

The Inspector General Prison, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi

The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur

The District Magistrate,Patna

The Jail Superintendent,Special Central Jail,Bhagalpur

The Jailor,Special Central Jail,Bhagalpur

The Jail Superintendent,Adarsh Central Jail,Beur,Patna

The Jailor,Adrsh Central Jail,Beur,Patna

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. Nadim Seraj - Gp5

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER

3 25-09-2024

Though the present writ petition has been filed to pay

compensation to the petitioner for keeping him in jail custody beyond the sentence awarded to him, vide judgment and order of sentence dated 11.7.2002, passed by the Ld. Court of 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No. 278/01/84/01, as also for making payment of arrear of wages for the period, the petitioner was suffering his sentence in jail i.e. in between 7.12.2000 to 17.9.2017, however, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent-State, by referring to

Patna High Court CWJC No.21158 of 2018(3) dt.25-09-2024 2/2

paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit, filed in the present case that the total remuneration of the petitioner for 2787 days for which he had worked, totals upto a sum of Rs. 53,252/-, out of which, a sum of Rs. 12,610/- was deducted under the head of victim compensation and the balance amount of Rs. 40,682/- has already been paid to the petitioner, hence, in case the petitioner is having any subsisting grievance, he can take recourse to the appropriate remedies as are otherwise available under the law.

The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been controverted by the petitioner, inasmuch as no rejoinder affidavit has been filed, hence, I deem it fit and proper to dispose off the present writ petition, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as are otherwise available under the law for redressal of his subsisting grievance, if any.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

Ajay/-

U