Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Prabhat Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Prabhat Kumar vs The State of Bihar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 12, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/974508

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prabhat Kumar

Respondent

The State of Bihar and ors.

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at patna miscellaneous jurisdiction case no.3751 of 2009 prabhat kumar, son of late surendra ojha, resident of village khabra, p.s. sadar, distt. muzaffarpur. ------ petitioner. versus 1. the state of bihar 2. mr. c.k. mishra, commisioner-cum-principal secretary, deptt. of health, govt. of bihar, patna.3. dr. shatrughan prasad singh, director-in-chief, health services, bihar, patna.4. dr. narayan pandit, regional deputy director, deptt. of health, tirhut division, muzaffarpur.5. dr. b.n. singh, civil surgeon-cum-chief medical officer, muzaffarpur. ----- opposite parties/contemnors. ---------------------------------- 2. 12.01.2012 heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. it has been submitted that subsequent to the passing of the orders by the single judge, a l.p.a. was preferred by the state and as per its order a one man committee was constituted to consider the legality or otherwise of the incumbents of the health department. there was a conditional order that if the service of any of the opposite parties in the l.p.a. was found to be legal, consequential benefits would be given. it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that subsequent to the finding of the one man committee, the petitioner has been reinstated but the consequential benefits have not been given to him in terms of the order passed in l.p.a. and he be permitted to file a mjc before the l.p.a. court. the application is permitted to be withdrawn in terms aforesaid. ( anjana prakash, j.) s.ali

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3751 of 2009 Prabhat Kumar, son of late Surendra Ojha, resident of village Khabra, P.S. Sadar, Distt. Muzaffarpur. ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mr. C.K. Mishra, Commisioner-Cum-Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Dr. Shatrughan Prasad Singh, Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna.

4. Dr. Narayan Pandit, Regional Deputy Director, Deptt. of Health, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

5. Dr. B.N. Singh, Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur. ----- Opposite Parties/Contemnors. ---------------------------------- 2. 12.01.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Opposite Parties. It has been submitted that subsequent to the passing of the orders by the Single Judge, a L.P.A. was preferred by the State and as per its order a one man committee was constituted to consider the legality or otherwise of the incumbents of the Health Department. There was a conditional order that if the service of any of the Opposite parties in the L.P.A. was found to be legal, consequential benefits would be given. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that subsequent to the finding of the one man committee, the petitioner has been reinstated but the consequential benefits have not been given to him in terms of the order passed in L.P.A. and he be permitted to file a MJC before the L.P.A. Court. The application is permitted to be withdrawn in terms aforesaid. ( Anjana Prakash, J.) S.Ali

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial