IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1513 of 2010 1. Madan Pandey S/O Sri Niwas Pandey R/O Vill.- Pipary, P.S.- Agrer, Distt.- Rohtas 2. Brij Kumar Tiwary S/O Biswanath Tiwary R/O Vill.- Karauni, P.S.- Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas 3. Bijay Shankar Pandey S/O Kalika Pandey R/O Vill.- Pipari, P.S.- Agrer, Distt.- Rohtas 4. Sunand Mohan Tiwary S/O Kripa Shankar Tiwary R/O Vill.- Mokar, P.S.- Agrer, Distt.- Rohtas 5. Rameshwar Prasad Singh S/O Late Bechan Singh R/O Vill.- Mokar, P.S.- Agrer, Distt.- Rohtas 6. Tej Narayan Mishra S/O Paras Nath Mishra R/O Vill.- Sisrit, P.S.- Nokha, Distt.- Rohtas Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Human Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. Sunil Kumar Gupta, The District Education Officer, Rohtas 3. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Through Its Chairman, Patna 4. Sri Niwas Chandra Tiwary, The Secretary Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna ---------------------------------- 7. 23.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. In CWJC No. 3324 of 2009 directions were given for examining the limited question of fact why the salary was not being released despite the order of the Special Director (Secondary Education) dated 12.1.1988 in Appeal No. 40 of 1987. It was also noticed that Title Suit No. 45/98 filed by the rival claimant had been dismissed. Title Appeal No. 270/2001 preferred against the same was dismissed for non prosecution. Misc. Case No. 7/2004 for restoration also dismissed for non prosecution. Misc. Case No. 9 of 2004 for restoration of Case No. 7 of 2004 was also rejected. The order dated 4.7.2007 of the Deputy Director (Secondary Education) staying payment of salary referring to pendency of Misc. Case No. 9/2004 was held to be a non est ground. 2 The Deputy Director (Secondary Education) has passed a fresh order on 19.8.2011 declining payment on the ground that Civil Review No. 305 of 2009 seeking recall of the dismissal of Civil Revision No. 1541 of 2004 has been allowed on 23.11.2004 and the Civil Revision is pending consideration on merits before this Court. The Civil Revision questions the order rejecting Misc. Case No. 9/2004. Earlier the Court had required the Special Director (Secondary Education) to be added as a party and file a show cause how an officer subordinate in rank to him had issued directions contrary to his order amounting to a sham compliance of the order of this Court. A separate show cause has been filed by the Special Director (Secondary Education). The thrust of his submission is also based on the orders of this Court in Civil Review No. 305 of 2009 restoring Civil Revision No. 1541 of 2004 supporting the order dated 19.8.2011. The jurisdiction of the Court in a contempt proceeding is restricted and no fresh enquiry is permissible in the same. The only jurisdiction is to examine if the directions of the Court has been complied with or not. The justification for the orders/action cannot be examined in a contempt proceeding except when it is a sham and amounts to no compliance at all. Equally when a plausible defence is put forward to explain non compliance or the manner of compliance, unless the Court finds it to be arbitrary and fanciful it cannot be examined on its merits in a contempt proceeding. The claim for enforcement of the order of the Special Director (Secondary Education) for release of the salary between the between the rival competing claimants arises out of order dated 12.1.1988 in Appeal No. 40 of 1987.Title Suit No. 45 of 1990 preferred by the rival claimant was dismissed as also the Title Appeal was dismissed for non prosecution. The application for restoring the Title Appeal was again 3 dismissed for non prosecution in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2004. Misc. Case No. 9 of 2004 for restoring Case No. 7 of 2004 was also dismissed for non prosecution. As of today Civil Revision No. 1451 of 2004 questioning the rejection of Misc. Case No. 9 of 2004 is pending adjudication before this Court on merits. The Court in the entirety of the matter is not satisfied that it would be proper for it to proceed in the contempt jurisdiction and/or give any further directions on the issue of payment in the present proceedings. The opposite parties express difficulty in compliance because of the pending litigations which cannot be held to be a sham. The legal effect of the pendency of Civil Revision No. 1451 of 2004 as a justification for non payment is a matter which can be considered after proper enquiry in a fresh writ petition only. The contempt proceeding stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)