Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12253 (JHR)

SWARNLATA MARANDI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cont.(Cvl)/349/2024 · 2025-08-01

Rajesh Shankar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:21356 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.349 of 2024 ----- Swarnlata Marandi, aged about 61 years, wife of Sunil Kumar Mandal, resident of village Amarpur, P.O. Pathra, P.S. Godda, District-Godda, Jharkhand. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sri Chandra Kishore Sahi, son of not known to the petitioner, Director-in-Chief, Department of Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, Advocate For the O.Ps. : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II ----- Order No.05 Date: 01.08.2025 1. The present contempt application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the Opposite Party No.2 alleging wilful violation of the order dated 3rd January, 2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6005 of 2023. 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned S.C. (L&C)-II refers to paragraph no.8 of the supplementary show-cause affidavit dated 3rd July, 2025 filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 which reads as under : “8.It is humbly stated and submitted that after receiving the Letter No.1507 dated 29.08.2024 the Civil Surgeon, Godda vide Memo No.1921 dated 19.09.2024 regularized the service of the petitioner and for the pension P.P.O. has also been issued in favour of the petitioner.” 3. It is, thus, submitted that the order dated 3rd January, 2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6005 of 2023 has been complied. 2025:JHHC:21356 2 4. Considering the aforesaid fact, there is no need to further procced in the contempt matter. The contempt proceeding as against the Opposite Party No.2 is, hereby, dropped. 5. The contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of. 6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate recourse for redressal of her subsisting grievance. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Rohit/