IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1365 of 2009 BIPAT BHAGAT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 01.09.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Annexures ‘A’ & ‘B’ mentioned in the show cause have not been annexed. Counsel for the State furnishes the same during the proceeding. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the order dated 22.7.2009 itself states that the petitioner had not discharged the duties of a Jeep Driver continuously from 1996 till 22.11.2007. This Court finds substance in his submission that the recitals in the order itself suggest that he in fact discharged duties of the Jeep Driver on certain specified dates though not continuously during that period. The contempt proceeding is disposed with the observation that the opposite parties are required to pay him the wages of Jeep Driver for such dates that he may have worked in that capacity preferably within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The contempt proceeding stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)