IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.608 of 2010 1. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAM JANAM SINGH R/O VILL.- SAIDANPUR, P.S.- GAURICHAK, DISTT.- PATNA PRESENTLY POSTER AS TYPIST (SUSPENDED) AREA OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, P.S. BELA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PATNA 2. MS. ANSHULI ARYA, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA 3. SRI GIRISH KUMAR, THE SECRETARY BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA with MJC No.1153 of 2010 1. MD. ZEYAUR REHMAN, S/O LATE NOORUL AMBEYA, R/O MITHANPURA CHOWCK EAST P.S. MITHANPURA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR PRESENTLY POSTED AS SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE PATNA. Versus 1. BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, UDYOG BHAWAN,EAST GANDHI MAIDAN,P.S.- GANDHI MAIDAN,PATNA. 2. MS. ANSHULI ARYA,THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PATNA. 3. SRI GIRISH KUMAR,THE SECRETARY,BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PATNA. 4. SRI GIRISH KUMAR,THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA. 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR with MJC No.1155 of 2010 1. SHAILESH KUMAR, S/O LATE KAMTA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, MUKHERJEE SEMINARY ROAD P.O. RAMNA ,P.S. MITHNAPURA,DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER (SUSPENDED), AREA OFFICE,BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DARBHANGA. Versus 1. BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, UDYOG BHAWAN,EAST GANDHI MAIDAN,P.S.- GANDHI MAIDAN,PATNA. 2. MS. ANSHULI ARYA,THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PATNA. 3. SRI GIRISH KUMAR,THE SECRETARY,BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,PATNA. 4. SRI AKHILANAND,THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IN CHARGE AREA OFFICE, BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DARBHANGA. 2 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 19.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. Once the claim for back wages have been considered, any grievance with regard to alleged wrongful denial not in consonance with any guidelines of the Supreme Court cannot be enquired into in the contempt jurisdiction. The remedy, if any, lies in a fresh writ application only. The contempt application merits no consideration and is disposed off. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in M.J.C. No. 2465 of 2009 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 15012 of 2008 disposed off by a common order along with C.W.J.C. No. 15351 of 2007 certain developments have taken place after the disposal of writ petition and the petitioner being similarly situated seeks like relief. Subsequent developments to the writ petition cannot form part of the directions contained in it to be enquired into in the contempt jurisdiction. Nonetheless in order to shorten litigation, if in a connected contempt application certain developments have been noticed and the stand of the opposite parties with regard to the same also taken note off, let the petitioner represent before the 3 opposite parties along with copy of the order in M.J.C. No. 2465 of 2009 for their consideration in accordance with law. It is expected that such consideration shall be done within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)