IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.816 of 2005 YUGAL KISHORE UPADHYAY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 10. 01.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the contemnor. Earlier contempt petition filed by the petitioner was dropped. Again the revival petition was filed stating that the opposite party (contemnors) have not complied with direction of this court in true spirit. It has been stated that though minimum scale and regularization, both were allowed to the petitioner but annual increment for which also the petitioner is entitled, was not allowed. Petitioner’s case is that minimum time scale includes annual increment as well. It has also been stated that in case of similarly situated persons, it has been allowed. I do not find that any ground is made out for revival of contempt petition. This contempt is again dropped. However, for minimum time scale and increment, the petitioner may represent before the concerned authority and they will consider it in similar manner as it has been done in case of similarly situated persons. akv/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )