Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9647 (JHR)

ANIL PRASAD v. J.C. ROY, THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN JHARIA AREA, BHOWRA, M/S. BHARAT COKING, COAL LIMITED

Cont.(Cvl)/1451/2025 · 2026-03-20

Rajesh Shankar

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:7982 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1451 of 2025 Anil Prasad ….. Petitioner Versus 1. Mr. J. C. Roy, General Manager, Eastern Jharia Area, Bhowra, M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad 2. Mr. Anil Kumar, Project Officer, A.S.P. Colliery (Sudamdih), M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad 3. The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Parties ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: None For O.P.Nos.1-2: Mr. A. K. Mehta, Advocate For O.P.No.3: Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C to G.P-II ----- 04/20.03.2026 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The present contempt application has been filed against the O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 alleging wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by this Court in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 901/2022. 3. Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.Nos. 1 & 2, refers to paragraph 8 of the show cause affidavit dated 28.01.2026 filed on behalf of the said opposite parties and submits that the amounts of Gratuity, leave encashment and bonus have already been paid to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the settling allowance has not been paid to the petitioner, as he did not vacate the official quarter in time. It is also clarified that Rs.2,21,796/- towards leave encashment has been paid to the petitioner after deducting Rs.1,01,498/- towards the house rent for over stay in the official quarter. 4. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid order of this Court has now been fully compiled by the O.P.Nos. 1 & 2. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not see any reason to further proceed with the matter. 6. The contempt proceeding as against the O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 is hereby dropped. 2026:JHHC:7982 7. The present contempt application stands disposed of. 8. The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate steps as permissible under law for redressal of his subsisting grievance. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)