Basuki Nath Yadav vs The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary Advocate - Girijish Kumar — MJC/472/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 215. Disposed: Contested--WITHDRAWN on 08th May 2026.
CNR: BRHC010173432026
e-Filing Number
13-02-2026
Filing Number
MJC/3644/2026
Filing Date
13-Feb-2026
Registration No
MJC/472/2026
Registration Date
16-Feb-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar
Coram
Mr. Justice Ajit 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Contested--WITHDRAWN
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Basuki Nath Yadav
Adv. Dhananjay Kumar,Kriti Pandey,Kriti Pandey, ,SURENDRA PRASAD TIWARI,Kriti Pandey
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary Advocate - Girijish Kumar
-
2.Bihar Education Project Council,
-
3.Mr. Naveen Kumar, The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Mr. Justice Ajit KumarView PDF
Summary: The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Basuki Nath Yadav, a former Assistant Resource Person, as infructuous. The State of Bihar had already paid the petitioner's gratuity and earned leave entitlements, and while the petitioner's claim for annual increment was denied as not applicable, the petitioner chose not to proceed further given his main grievances were redressed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
For Admission - Tied Up
Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar
-
01-May-2026
For Admission - Tied Up
Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar
-
25-Mar-2026
For Orders (On Office Notes) - Tied Up
Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar
-
11-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. MJC/472/2026
Summary: The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Basuki Nath Yadav, a former Assistant Resource Person, as infructuous. The State of Bihar had already paid the petitioner's gratuity and earned leave entitlements, and while the petitioner's claim for annual increment was denied as not applicable, the petitioner chose not to proceed further given his main grievances were redressed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts