RAJ KISHORE MAHTO vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - KISHORE KR SINGH — Cont.(Cvl)/733/2025
Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 10th April 2026.
CNR: JHHC010150592025
Filing Number
Cont.(Cvl)/4906/2025
Filing Date
01-May-2025
Registration No
Cont.(Cvl)/733/2025
Registration Date
30-May-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
Coram
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
CONTEMPT ( 118 )
Sub-Category
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 15-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAJ KISHORE MAHTO
Adv. ALTAF HUSSAIN,AFAQUE AHMED,AFAQUE AHMED, ,SHARABHIL AHMED,AFAQUE AHMAD
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - KISHORE KR SINGH
-
2.SHRI SHASHI PRAKASH SINGH, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY
-
3.SHRI BADAL RAJ, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, RANCHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF
The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the contempt petition filed by Raj Kishore Mahto against the State and education officials, finding that the Director of Primary Education had already complied with the court's May 2024 order by passing an order on 17.07.2025 recognizing the petitioner's appointment date as 16.04.1982 for pension purposes. However, the court cautioned that if revised pensionary benefits are not actually extended within six weeks, the petitioner may file a fresh contempt application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh Shankar
-
13-Jun-2025
Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF
-
13-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
01-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. Cont.(Cvl)/733/2025
The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the contempt petition filed by Raj Kishore Mahto against the State and education officials, finding that the Director of Primary Education had already complied with the court's May 2024 order by passing an order on 17.07.2025 recognizing the petitioner's appointment date as 16.04.1982 for pension purposes. However, the court cautioned that if revised pensionary benefits are not actually extended within six weeks, the petitioner may file a fresh contempt application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts