High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Niramal Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors. on 25 August, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Niramal Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors. on 25 August, 2011
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                          Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.969 of 2011
                     NIRAMAL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE UMA SINGH,
                     RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAG MAJHAUWAN, P.S.
                     KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR, (ARA).
                                             Versus
                     1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
                     2. MR.      S.K.    NEGI,        THE      SECRETARY CUM
                        COMMISSIONER, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,
                        BIHAR, PATNA.
                     3. MR. RAGHBENDRA PAL SINGH, THE MANAGING
                        DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE COOPERATIVE LAND
                        DEVELOPMENT BANK, PATNA.
                     4. MR. GOPAL PRASAD, THE DIRECTOR(PERSONNEL),
                        BIHAR STATE COOPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT
                        BANK, PATNA.
                     5. MR. KAPILDEO NARAYAN SINGH, THE DEPUTY
                        DIRECTOR CUM PLANNING OFFICER, BIHAR STATE
                        COOPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK,
                        PATNA.
                     6. MR. SHIV PUJAN SINGH, THE ACCONTS OFFICER,
                        BIHAR COOPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK,
                        PATNA
                     7. MR. SHYAM BAHADUR SINGH, THE REGIONAL
                        MANAGER, LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, BHOJPUR,
                        (ARA).
                                        ----------------------

04. 25.08.2011 The Bihar State Cooperative Land

Development Bank considering the disability status

of the petitioner in compliance of the orders of the

High Court dated 17.09.2010 passed order bearing

Memo No.1306 dated 9.5.2011 whereunder taking

into account the disability status of the petitioner

instead of part payment of arrears of salary, a sum of

Rs.73,751/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner has

been paid so as to enable the petitioner to meet the

medical expenses for treatment. In the event, the
2

amount of Rs.73,751/- is not sufficient to meet the

treatment expenses of the petitioner, he should file

another writ petition challenging the aforesaid order

giving details of the expenditure, which he has to

incur in connection with medical treatment.

The contempt petition is, accordingly,

disposed of.

( V. N. Sinha, J.)
Rajesh/