Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22793 (JHR)

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY UMA SHANKAR SINGH

Cont.(Cvl)/721/2024 · 2025-04-30

Rajesh Shankar

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:12899 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 721 of 2024 --- Anil Kumar Upadhyay son of Late Haribans Narayan Upadhyay, resident of Mohalla- Karansaray, P.O. & P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas (Bihar), presently residing at Sri Vinayak Residency, A/404, D.Banshidhar Colony, Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Uma Shankar Singh, Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Kumari Neelam, District Education Officer, Ramgarh 4. Vigya Pathak, Principal, S.S.+2 High School, Mandu, Ramgarh …. … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mrs. Rita Kumari, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Shubham Mishra, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-II Order No. 14 Dated: 30.04.2025 The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties alleging willful violation of order dated 31.08.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 831 of 2021. 2. Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-II, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, refers to paragraph-7 of the show cause affidavit dated 10.09.2024 filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3, which reads as under: “7. That in response to para-9, it is stated and submitted that petitioner’s Group Insurance w.e.f. 1985 to the tune of Rs.2,16,054.00 has been paid vide bill no. 29/2024-25 dated 23.08.2024. “Copy of bill no. 29/2024-25 dated 23.08.2024 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the said show cause affidavit.” 3. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid order of this Court has been complied. 4. Considering the aforesaid statement made in the show cause affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3, there is 2 no need to further proceed in the present matter. 5. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is hereby dropped. 6. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law for redressal of his subsisting grievance. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh/