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.
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
Petitioner(s)
-
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.Deepak Kumar Singh1.
-
3.Renu Singh,1.
-
4.Ruby Singh,1.
-
5.Reena Singh,1.
-
6.Dheeraj Singh,1.
-
7.Kevla Devi,
Respondent(s)
-
1.Syalin Abbasi, the Chairman and Managing Director Advocate - Prabhakar Tekriwal, ,Prabhat Kumar Verma,Suman Kumar Jha
-
2.B.Subha Laxmy ,The Executive Director(East zone)
-
3.Avinash Kumar The General manager(Law)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Mr. Justice Ritesh KumarView PDF
-
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.
-
04-May-2026
For Admission
Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar
-
27-Apr-2026
For Admission
Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar
-
24-Apr-2026
For Admission II
Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar
-
30-Mar-2026
For Admission II
Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar
-
13-Feb-2026
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha
-
06-Feb-2026
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha
-
30-Jan-2026
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha
-
12-Dec-2025
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha
-
28-Nov-2025
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha
-
09-Oct-2025
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
24-Sep-2025
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
13-Aug-2025
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
16-Jul-2025
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
02-Jul-2025
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Nani Tagia
-
22-Nov-2023
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
-
09-Nov-2023
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
-
03-Nov-2023
For Admission -I
Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
-
02-Nov-2023
For Orders (On Petitions)-I
Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
-
10-Jul-2019
For Admission - Tied Up
Mr. Justice S. Kumar
-
03-Jul-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Jan-2019
Case filed
Registration No. MJC/323/2019
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