logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Jhar HC 001 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Jharkhand
Case No : Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1011 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
Parties : Surendra Pandey Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Deepak Kr. Dubey, Rashi Sharma, Ruhi Dubey, Advocates. For the Respondents: Anshuman Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-II, Prakash Chandra, Virendra Kumar, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 19-12-2025
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Order dated 26.09.2024
- W.P.(S) No.5304 of 2021

2. Catch Words:
- contempt
- dismissal
- consequential benefits
- quantum

3. Summary:
The Coordinate Bench set aside the petitioner’s dismissal order in W.P.(S) No.5304 of 2021 and directed payment of consequential benefits. The petitioner contended that the amount paid was substantially lower than the entitled ₹26 lakhs, which was withheld due to a pending writ petition. The court examined the submissions and found no basis for contempt. Consequently, the contempt proceedings were terminated. The petitioner was informed that he may challenge the respondents’ action regarding the quantum of payment if aggrieved.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Heard the parties.

2. The dismissal order of the petitioner was set aside by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2024 in W.P.(S) No.5304 of 2021. There was a direction to pay the consequential benefits.

3. The amount which has been paid is objected by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the amount is on the much lesser side and the amount of 26 lakhs, which the petitioner is entitled to get, has been kept in abeyance on the ground that another writ petition is pending.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, no contempt is made out.

6. Accordingly, this contempt proceeding is dropped.

7. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the action of the respondents, if he is aggrieved by the quantum.
 
  CDJLawJournal