IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.211 of 2006 SHANKAR PRASAD TIWARI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. J.P.Sharma For the respondent nos. 1to 4 : Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma JC to GA - IX P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan --- Dated, the 7th August, 2008 Inter alia, the petitioner approached this court by filing the writ petition being CWJC. No.10478 of 1999 seeking a direction to respondents for payment of salary for the period he worked as Pump Operator. The writ petition was disposed of on 18th February, 2005 by the following order: “One aspect which has not been denied is that engagement of the petitioners from November, 1990 is rather renewed from that date and they are discharging their duty as regular employees. If that be so, they are required to be paid their salary for the period they have worked. As such this court directs respondent no.2 to work out the period for which both the petitioners have discharged their duty and if it is found that they have worked, their salary for the period should be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with a representation giving the details of the work. It is further made clear that if the petitioners are in continuous service they are also required to be paid their salary for regular work. I order accordingly.” 2. In this contempt application (MJC), the petitioner has 2 raised the grievance that despite the order dated 18th February, 2006 he has not been paid salary for the work done during the relevant period. 3. In response to the contempt application, a show – cause has been filed by the contesting respondents. It is stated that the Chief Engineer constituted a liability committee comprising of himself and four other officers and it was found that there was no proof that the petitioner had worked for the period from April 1990 to December 1990 at Khajura – I Lift Irrigation schemes and from January 1991 to April 1991 at Niazjpur Lift Irrigation Scheme. 4. It is, thus, seen that in the absence of any proof that the petitioner worked during the disputed period, he has been denied the payment of salary. 5. The conduct of the respondents, therefore, cannot be said to be contemptuous nor they can be held guilty of deliberate disobedience or defiance of the order of this court. 6. We dispose of the contempt application (MJC) accordingly. 7. However, we observe that if the petitioner produces the proof of his work for the relevant period before the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna, he will consider the said proof independent of earlier consideration by the liability committee and if it is found that the petitioner has worked during the 3 said period, he will be paid the salary accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. Neyaz/-