Dinesh Prasad Saha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 3 November, 2011

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                             MJC No.562 of 2011
                  DINESH PRASAD SAHA, S/O LATE LAXMI PRASAD
                  SAHA, R/O MASACK CHAK, 31 S.C.ROAD BHAGALPUR,
                  P.O.+P.S.-BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR.
                                                ............PETITIONER.
                                      Versus
                     1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH MR.AMARJEET
                        SINHA, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH
                        DEPARTMENT, PATNA.
                     2. MR. AMARJEET SINHA, THE PRINCIPAL
                        SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF
                        BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA.
                     3. MR.MADAN PRASAD, THE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
                        HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
                        VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA.
                     4. DR.ANIL CHAUDHARY, THE CIVIL SURGEON-
                        CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR,
                        DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR.
                     5. DR.SMT. SAROJ SINGH, THE DEPUTY
                        SUPERINTENDENT, SUB-DIVISONAL HOSPITAL
                        ROSHRA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR.
                     6. DR.ARJUN PRASAD SINGH, THE PRINCIPAL,
                        JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
                        HOSPITAL, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR.
                     7. MR.ARUN KUMAR SINHA, THE SENIOR ACCOUNT
                        OFFICER ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OFFICE,
                        BIHAR, PATNA.       ............OPP. PARTIES.
                                -----------

3 03.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned counsel for the State and

learned counsel for the Accountant General.

Learned counsel for the petitioner

accepts that, by treating the petitioner to

have superannuated with effect from

31.01.2010, petitioner’s entire post-retiral

benefits have been calculated and paid,

except some petty amount. However, he submits

that now the opposite parties are disputing

his date of superannuation and are taking a
2

stand that his effective date of

superannuation is 31.01.2008. In view of the

said dispute, petitioner now apprehends that

some orders may be passed adverse to the

petitioner which may cause pecuniary loss to

him.

The date of superannuation of the

petitioner was not an issue before this Court

in the writ matter and the correctness of the

same was not considered while disposing of

the same. Hence, this Court cannot pass any

order in this contempt proceeding in respect

of correctness of the date of superannuation

of the petitioner.

If the petitioner has any

apprehension with regard to that stand of the

opposite parties, he is at liberty to

challenge the same in an appropriate

proceeding in accordance with law.

The MJC application is disposed of.

Arvind/                           ( J.N. Singh, J.)