Sri Devendra Prasad Singh(Legal Heir) vs Syalin Abbasi, the Chairman and Managing Director Advocate - Prabhakar Tekriwal, ,Prabhat Kumar Verma,Suman Kumar Jha — MJC/323/2019

Case under Constitution of India Section 215. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: BRHC010084702019

Filing Number

MJC/5950/2019

Filing Date

23-Jan-2019

Registration No

MJC/323/2019

Registration Date

23-Jan-2019

Judge

Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar

Coram

Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

MJC ( 10 )

Sub-Category

CONTEMPT- SJ ( 100 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 215
Contempt of Courts Act Section 12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sri Devendra Prasad Singh(Legal Heir)

    Adv. Rajeev Shekhar,Sukriti Kumari,Sukriti Kumari, MINU KUMARI,Abhay Kumar Thakur,Arvnendra Kumar Thakur,Sukriti Kumari1.

  2. 2.Deepak Kumar Singh1.

  3. 3.Renu Singh,1.

  4. 4.Ruby Singh,1.

  5. 5.Reena Singh,1.

  6. 6.Dheeraj Singh,1.

  7. 7.Kevla Devi,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Syalin Abbasi, the Chairman and Managing Director Advocate - Prabhakar Tekriwal, ,Prabhat Kumar Verma,Suman Kumar Jha

  2. 2.B.Subha Laxmy ,The Executive Director(East zone)

  3. 3.Avinash Kumar The General manager(Law)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Ritesh KumarView PDF

  3. 08-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Ritesh KumarView PDF

    Case Summary: MJC/323/2019 The Patna High Court dismissed the contempt petition filed by the legal heirs of a deceased Food Corporation of India (FCI) employee against FCI officials for non-compliance with a 2018 court order directing payment of gratuity and terminal benefits. The court held that since the employee had faced three separate departmental proceedings resulting in penalty orders (dismissal, removal from service, and reduction in rank) that forfeited terminal benefits and gratuity, and the employee never challenged these penalty orders in court, they attained finality. Consequently, the court ruled that no contempt jurisdiction could apply when an underlying punishment order exists, finding no liability against the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 04-May-2026

    For Admission

    Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar

  5. 27-Apr-2026

    For Admission

    Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar

  6. 24-Apr-2026

    For Admission II

    Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    For Admission II

    Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar

  8. 13-Feb-2026

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha

  9. 06-Feb-2026

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha

  10. 30-Jan-2026

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha

  11. 12-Dec-2025

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha

  12. 28-Nov-2025

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha

  13. 09-Oct-2025

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Nani Tagia

  14. 24-Sep-2025

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Nani Tagia

  15. 13-Aug-2025

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Nani Tagia

  16. 16-Jul-2025

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Nani Tagia

  17. 02-Jul-2025

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Nani Tagia

  18. 22-Nov-2023

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Harish Kumar

  19. 09-Nov-2023

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Harish Kumar

  20. 03-Nov-2023

    For Admission -I

    Mr. Justice Harish Kumar

  21. 02-Nov-2023

    For Orders (On Petitions)-I

    Mr. Justice Harish Kumar

  22. 10-Jul-2019

    For Admission - Tied Up

    Mr. Justice S. Kumar

  23. 03-Jul-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 23-Jan-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. MJC/323/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MJC/323/2019 The Patna High Court dismissed the contempt petition filed by the legal heirs of a deceased Food Corporation of India (FCI) employee against FCI officials for non-compliance with a 2018 court order directing payment of gratuity and terminal benefits. The court held that since the employee had faced three separate departmental proceedings resulting in penalty orders (dismissal, removal from service, and reduction in rank) that forfeited terminal benefits and gratuity, and the employee never challenged these penalty orders in court, they attained finality. Consequently, the court ruled that no contempt jurisdiction could apply when an underlying punishment order exists, finding no liability against the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case