IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.718 of 2011 BASHIST NARAYAN JHA, SON OF SHRI HIRALAL JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SARISAB, POLICE STATION- BENIPATTI, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI, AT PRESENT POSTED AS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SIWAN, DISTRICT-SIWAN. ………………………………APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.5. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN. ……………………………...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. 5. PURNIMA KUMARI CHAUBEY, WIFE OF SHRI TRIBHUWAN NATH PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PHULMATI BHAWAN SHUKLA TOLI, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT-SIWAN. ………………………………….PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. ----------- For the Appellant : M/s. Ashawani Kumar Singh & Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-VII. For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. No.5 ---------- 2. 29.4.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and leaned counsel for the Respondent No.5 (writ petitioner). This appeal is directed not against the merit of the 2 order dated 18.4.2011, whereby the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.12299 of 2010 has been allowed, rather it is only against certain observations and directions against the Respondent No.5 of the writ petition, the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan. The appellant holds the said post and since he is adversely affected by those observations and directions, he has chosen to prefer this appeal in his personal capacity. The relevant part of the order dated 5.8.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.8727 of 2009 has been extracted in the order under appeal. That gives no manner of doubt that the appellant was required to grant similar relief to other teachers without compelling them to come to this Court. It was made clear by the Writ Court that non compliance of that order would amount to contempt of this Court. Since no relief was granted to the writ petitioner out of that order, he was compelled to prefer the writ petition on 30th of July, 2010. Instead of rectifying his mistake, in the counter affidavit the appellant sought to justify the inaction on account of some circular of the Finance Department. Only when the order was passed by the Writ Court to face charge of contempt, vide an order dated 18.4.2011 he undid the mistake committed earlier 3 and granted relief to the writ petitioner and other teachers giving them monetary benefit with retrospective effect. The show cause filed by the appellant before the Writ Court contains unqualified apology and eventually the order of the Writ Court dated 5.8.2009 passed at the instance of other teachers has been complied with, although after some delay. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the observations and directions for placing the appellant under suspension and subjecting him to departmental proceeding and not to post him in the field are harsh because the appellant has tendered unqualified apology and has also complied with the order of the Writ Court before final disposal. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner was forced to suffer loss in preferring the writ petition because of unreasonable approach of the appellant and, hence, the contempt committed by him should not be ignored by mere acceptance of apology rather the appellant should be asked to pay cost of Rs.5000/- incurred by the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant has agreed to pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the writ petitioner and file a receipt in this 4 case within four weeks. In that view of the matter, this appeal is disposed of by expunging the adverse observations and directions against the appellant but subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- to the writ petitioner within the time indicated above. P.S. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)