Patna High Court
Vidyanand Das @ Bidhyanand DasversusThe Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited
- Decided
- Disposal
- CONSIGNED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that no contempt of court had occurred as the respondents had complied with the earlier order and the petitioner's claim was untenable, and therefore the contempt petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Vidyanand Das, filed a contempt petition alleging that the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (BSFC) willfully violated the High Court's order dated 22 June 2023 directing payment of his retiral dues and related formalities. The 2023 order required the Managing Director to pay all admissible dues within five weeks, submit EPF forms within three weeks, and provide necessary documents to the petitioner within two weeks. The court examined the show‑cause and reply filings, noting that the petitioner had been dismissed in 1991, reinstated in 1994, and superannuated in 2014, and that BSFC had already paid all dues up to the date of dismissal. Since the respondents had complied with the earlier order and no further relief was pending, the court concluded that the petitioner could not be held in contempt. Accordingly, the contempt petition was consigned (dismissed) and the accompanying review petition (C. Review No. 223 of 2024) was also dismissed. The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents willfully violated the order dated 22 June 2023 regarding payment of the petitioner's retiral dues.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a contempt proceeding in the present circumstances.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a review of the order dated 29 April 2011 in C.W.J.C. No.6997 of 2011.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt of court
- retirement dues
- Employees Provident Fund
- writ jurisdiction
- review petition
- service dismissal
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2819 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.209 of 2019
======================================================
Vidyanand Das @ Bidhyanand Das Son of Late Mukha Das, Residetn of 462,
Mirchi Talab, Dhobi Tola, Lal Darwaja, P.s. Munger, Distt. Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited through Sri
Vinay Kumar, Son of not known, the Managing Director, Khadya Bhawan,
R. Block, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Road No. 2, Patna- 800001.
2. Shri Amresh Kumar Amar, Son of not known, the General Manager
(Administration), Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,
Khadya Bhawan, R. Block, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Road No. 2, Patna-
800001.
3. Sri Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, Son of not known, the Deputy General Manager
(Administration), Accounts and Budget, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited, Khadya Bhawan, R. Block, Daroga Prasad Rai Path,
Road No. 2, Patna- 800001.
4. Shri Subhash Kumar, Son of not known, the District Manager, Bihar State
Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Munger, District- Munger.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVIEW No. 223 of 2024
In
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2819 of 2023
======================================================
1. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited through Sri
Vinay Kumar, Son of not known, the Managing Director, Khadya Bhawan,
R. Block, Daroga Pasad Rai Path, Road No. 2, Patna- 800001.
2. Shri Amresh Kumar Amar, the General Manager (Administration), Bihar
State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Khadya Bhawan, R.
Block, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Road No. 2, Patna 800001.
3. Sri Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, the Deputy General Manager (Administration),
Accounts and Budget, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Khadya Bhawan, R. Block, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, Road No. 2,
Patna- 800001.
4. Shri Subhash Kumar, the District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited, Munger, District- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Vidyanand Das @ Bidhyanand Das Son of Late Mukha Das, Resident of 462,
Mirchi Talab, Dhobi Tola, Lal Darwaja, P.S. Munger, Distt. Munger.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court MJC No.2819 of 2023(15) dt.18-02-2026
2/6
(In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2819 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shweta Anand, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.
(In CIVIL REVIEW No. 223 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shweta Anand, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
15 18-02-2026 Re.: M.J.C. No. 2819 of 2023
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present
contempt petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s),
which is reproduced hereinafter:-
“That this is an application for initiation of
contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for their
willful and deliberately violation of order dated 22.06.2023
passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh in C.W.J.C.
No. 209/2019.”
3. Vide order dated 22.06.2023 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 209 of 2019, this Court, inter alia, has passed the following
order on the basis of the materials available on record being part
of the writ petition and the counter affidavit.
“Heard Ms. Shweta Anand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra
Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The retiral dues of the petitioner have been
withheld by the Respondent-State (Bihar State Food & Civil
Supplies Corporation Ltd., Munger) for the reasons that the
service record of the petitioner was not available and also
for non-availability of place of retirement either petitioner
had retired from Dhanbad office or Munger office.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner informs this Court that she has received
instruction from the petitioner that the petitioner had retired
on 30.06.2014 from S.F.C. office, Munger.
3. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel
Patna High Court MJC No.2819 of 2023(15) dt.18-02-2026
3/6
appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Food & Civil
Supplies Corporation Ltd. informs this Court that the
authority will make payment of admissible retiral dues
including E.P.F. and pension to the petitioner preferably
within a period of three weeks.
4. It is made clear that the Managing Director of
Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Patna
must ensure that all the retiral dues admissible to the
petitioner are paid within time. He is also required to
inform the Commissioner of the Employees Provident Fund
(E.P.F.) along with the duly filled form including any other
form required to be filled in by the petitioner for the
purpose of payment within a period of three weeks. All the
dues amount payable to the petitioner must be paid within a
period of five weeks from the date of this order.
5. The Managing Director must ensure that the
forms, which are required to be filled in by the petitioner,
must be handed over to the petitioner within a period of two
weeks from the date of this order so that the respondents
can take steps for making payment of all the retiral dues as
claimed.
6. In case the Managing Director fails to abide by
this order in the manner as prescribed within a period of
five weeks, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate
action against the Managing Director in case of non-
compliance of order within time prescribed.
6. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Food & Civil
Supplies Corporation Ltd. must not wait for
pronouncement of this order, he must communicate
telephonically or by any other mode to the Managing
Director of Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation
Ltd, Patna.
7. With the above direction/observation, the present
writ petition is disposed of.
4. It is clear in Paragraph No.4 of the order dated
22.06.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 209 of 2019 that the
Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies
Corporation Limited, Patna was directed to ensure that all the
retiral dues admissible to the petitioner be paid within time. He
was also directed to inform the Commissioner of the Employees
Provident Fund (E.P.F.) along with the duly filled form and
other form required to be filled in by the petitioner for the
Patna High Court MJC No.2819 of 2023(15) dt.18-02-2026
4/6
purpose of payment in respect of admissible retiral dues within a
period of three weeks. It is pointed out that in the writ petition,
the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees
Provident Fund, Regional Office was not impleaded as a
respondent.
5. Show cause has been filed on behalf of the Bihar
State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to
as “BSFC”), as well as, on behalf of the Regional
Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund, Regional Office,
Bhagalpur.
6. Record reveals that the petitioner was dismissed
from service on 20.02.1991. Against the dismissal order,
petitioner has filed C.W.J.C. No. 6997 of 2011 which was
dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2011 on merits though the
petitioner had not appeared at the time of hearing of the case.
The order dated 29.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6997 of
2011 has been brought on record by way of Annexure R/3 to the
show cause filed on behalf of the BSFC. This Court vide order
dated 29.04.2011, inter alia, had passed following orders
considering the objection raised by the stamp reporter and the
pleadings made in the writ petition”
“The stamp reporter has pointed out the defect
that the writ petition seems to be not maintainable as order
dated 4.11.2010 appears to be final order which is also
under challenge.
Patna High Court MJC No.2819 of 2023(15) dt.18-02-2026
5/6
When the matter was called out on 21.4.2011 no one
appeared for the petitioner. Again when the matter is called
out today none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal
from service dated 20.2.1991 passed by the Chairman-cum-
Managing Director of the Bihar State Food & Civil
Supplies Corporation and further seeks quashing of the
order dated 4.11.2010 passed by the Additional Munsif, Vth
Munger, in Title Suit No. 70 of 1995, by which the suit filed
for declaration that the order of dismissal from service is
illegal, inoperative and without jurisdiction, has been
dismissed. It is pointed out by the stamp reporter that the
order dated 4.11.2010 being a final order passed in a title
suit is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court
and thus the writ petition is not maintainable.
Against an order of dismissal passed in title suit,
which amounts to a decree, statutory remedy is provided
under the Code of Civil Procedure. In the above
circumstances, the writ application cannot be maintained
before this Court.
The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed as
not maintainable.”
7. Against the show cause filed, the petitioner filed
his reply on 26.07.2024 and in his reply has stated that the
petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1991 and
thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in service on 02.06.1994
and he superannuated on 30.06.2014. Statement in respect of
reinstatement is contained in Para-10 of the reply to the show
cause, however, the petitioner in support of the same has not
brought on record even a chit of paper. Those information
admittedly were not given in C.W.J.C. No. 209 of 2019 nor the
said information finds reference in the order dated 22.06.2023
under contempt.
8. As per the information contained in show cause
filed by the respective parties, the petitioner has been paid as on
Patna High Court MJC No.2819 of 2023(15) dt.18-02-2026
6/6
date all the retiral dues admissible to him till the date of his
dismissal and the EPF amount payable to him till February
1991.
9. Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 of the
Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is limited. A
person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for any action of
the Opposite Party in respect of which any relief has been
granted on the merits of the case on considering the materials
brought on record, which has been heard and finally decided.
10. The petitioner, if so desires, may avail appropriate
remedy in accordance with law.
11. The contempt petition, accordingly, stands
consigned.
Re.: C. Review No. 223 of 2024
12. Considering the fact that petitioner has not been
able to make out a case to interfere with my order dated
29.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6997 of 2011, I do not find
the present review is required to be adjudicated, is also
dismissed.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U
Checking your session…