Raj Kumari Devi vs Sri Ravindra Singh Managing Director ... on 22 April, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Raj Kumari Devi vs Sri Ravindra Singh Managing Director ... on 22 April, 2016

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cont. Case (Civil) No. 222 of 2014
                                             ---
          Deepak Kumar Gupta                     ---   ---    ---- Petitioner
                                           Versus
         1. The State of Jharkhand
         2.Shri Ravindra Singh, Managing Director,
            Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad --- --- Opp. Parties
                                             ---
         CORAM:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

          For the Petitioner:  Mr. J.S. Tripathy, Advocate
          For the O.P. - MADA: Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate
                                                  ---
          I.A. No. 2590/2015

06/ 22.04.2016

Prayer for substitution has been made in I.A. No. 2590/2015 where applicant who is the son of the deceased petitioner, seeks substitution in place of the petitioner who is said to have died on 25.12.2014.

2. Counsel for the opposite party do not object to the substitution, however submits that the claim of any other lawful claimant also needs to be scrutinized before releasing payment in favour of the substituted petitioner.

3. In that view of the matter, prayer for substitution is allowed. Let the applicant

- Deepak Kumar Gupta be substituted in place of the deceased petitioner. I.A. stands disposed of.

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 222/2014 Counsel for the opposite party submits that a show-cause has been filed on 26.02.2016 enclosing a reasoned order dated 18.02.2016 passed in compliance of the order under offence. As per the reasoned order, a sum of Rs. 7,22,822/- has been found to be admissible against the various post retirement and service dues. Payments are to be made in installment of Rs. 50,000/- per month, as per the scheme framed for the retired employees of MADA keeping into account the weak financial condition of the organization.

2. As per the reasoned order, petitioner may file an objection before the competent authority under MADA within a period of 15 days, if not satisfied with the computation of the amount.

3. However, petitioner is at liberty to file objection if not satisfied. It is pointed out that if installments are not being paid within time, petitioner may be given liberty to approach this Court once again. It goes without saying

4. In that view of the matter, contempt petition is disposed of. Proceedings are dropped.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court