Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Arvind Kumar Chaudhary on 18 March, 2017
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Nilu Agrawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.762 of 2014
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12827 of 2008
===========================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture
Department, Vikash Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Krishi
Udyog Bhawan, Sinha Library Road, Patna
3. The Secretary, Bihar State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Krish Udyog
Bhawan, Library Road, Patna
4. The Regional Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, R. Block, Road No. 6, Patna
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Shail Devi, wife of Late Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, resident of village - Kurson,
P.O. Chuni, P.S. Madhepur, District - Madhubani
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal
Mr. Bipin Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Rishit Deo Kumar Singh, Advocate
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 18-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the private-respondent.
Since the private-respondent is dead, a substitution petition has been filed. I. A. No. 1930 of 2017 is allowed.
Let Shail Devi, the wife of the erstwhile employee, be substituted.
Heard counsel for the appellants and the counsel for Patna High Court LPA No.762 of 2014 dt.18-03-2017 2/2 the legal heir.
The appeal is dismissed, because the Learned Single Judge has only given a direction to calculate and pay the rightful dues of the erstwhile employee and it is an accepted position that such amounts are due and has been specified in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, dated 27.08.2012.
There is nothing to interfere with such a direction, as there is no legal infirmity.
Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) SKM/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE Uploading Date 20.03.2017 Transmission Date