Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10773 (JHR)

KAUSHLAYA DEVI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cont.(Cvl)/889/2024 · 2026-03-20

Sri Ananda Sen

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:7979 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 889 of 2024 ------ Kaushlaya Devi, aged about 83 years, widow of Late Chandradeo Singh, resident of village Gamhariya, P.O. Gamhariya, P.S. Ghaghra, District- Gumla. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Topo, son of not known to the petitioner, Treasury Officer, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla, Jharkhand. 3. Mr. Mayank Mandulna son of not known to the petitioner, Branch Manager, Bank of India, Ghaghra Branch, P.O. and P.S. Ghaghra, District-Gumla, Jharkhand. … … Opp. Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C.(L&C)-II. Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C to S.C.(L&C)-II. For the Bank of India : Mr. Rahul Anand, Advocate. ------ 13/ 20th March, 2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order dated 13.03.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 325 of 2024 by this Court was to effect that the opposite party were directed to consider the case of the petitioner and recommend the same to Bank for making the payment of family pension along with 6% statutory interest. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the entire amount has been paid to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 28 lakhs and the interest also. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes and submits that the entire amount has not been paid, some amount is remained to be paid. 5. While going through the order dated 13.03.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 325 of 2024, I find that there is no quantification of any amount in the said order. This is a contempt application. This court cannot now assess and calculate the amount payable specially when the opposite parties are submitting that they have paid the entire amount. 6. Considering the aforesaid submission, no contempt is made out. 7. Accordingly, this contempt proceeding is dropped with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the opposite parties if at all he is aggrieved with the same. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 20.03.2026 Amar/- Uploaded on:-25.03.2026