IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1940 of 2006 AJAY KUMAR TALUKDAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Gautam Saha For the Opp. Party nos. 1 to 4: Mr.Vishwambhar Prasad JC to GP IV P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 14th August, 2008 In the cause shown by the opposite party no.3, the following statement has been made: “(i) That the opposite party no.3 just after receiving the order of this Hon’ble Court sent a letter bearing memo no.462 dated 2.05.2006 to the Director, Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar for necessary direction and needful action, a copy of which was also sent to HOD Community Polytechnic and Rural Technology, NIITTTR, Kolkata along with a copy of the order of this Hon’ble Court seeking direction and guidance to comply with the order of this Hon’ble Court. (ii) That the Director, Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar vide his letter dated 31.5.06 directed the opposite party no.3 to act at his own and if needed suitable direction/guidance may be sought from NITTTR, Kolkata. (iii) That in the light of the above letter dated 31.5.06 (Annexure-C) and letter dated 23.9.2002 of T.T.T.I., Kolkata, the opposite party no.3 vide his letter no.484 dated 12.6.2006 sent a letter to the H.O.D., Community Polytechnic and Rural Technology NITTR, Kolkata seeking his direction for compliance of order of this Hon’ble Court. (iv) That on getting no response from NITTTR, Kolkata, the opposite party no.3 again wrote a letter to 2 NITTTR, Kolkata vide letter no.698 dated 07.07.2006 seeking his necessary direction for payment of wages/arrears to the petitioner for compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court. (v) That as no direction/order was received from NITTTR, Kolkata, another letter no.527 dated 2.8.06 was again sent to the HOD, Community Polytechnic and Rural Technology NITTTR, Kolkata giving details of arrear wages/remuneration to be paid to the petitioners and explaining the circumstances under which the direction/approval was needed from NITTTR, Kolkata in compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court. A copy of the letter was sent to the Director, department of Science and Technology and the other copy was sent to the Director NITTTR, Kolkata for information and needful. (vi) That again getting no response a letter was again sent to HOD Community Polytechnic and Rural Tech. NITTTR, Kolkata by a special messenger vide letter no.11 dated 12.8.06 requesting him to fix date, time and venue either in Kolkata or in Patna where proper discussion could be made and decision be taken for compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court. (vii) That nothing inordinate delay in compliance of the order of Hon’ble High Court Patna a letter was again written to Dr. U.C. Kumar, the HOD, Community Polytechnic and Rural Technology, NITTTR, Kolkata vide letter no.550 dated 19.8.2002 for seeking the direction for compliance of the order of Hon’ble High Court, Patna. A photo copy of writ petition of CWJC. No.1949/2003, counter affidavit and the order of Hon’ble High Court, Patna was enclosed with the letter. A copy of the letter was also sent to the Director, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar and Director, NITTTR, Kolkata for information and necessary action. (viii) That Dr. U.C. Kumar, H.O.D. Community Polytechnic and Rural Technology, NITTTR, Kolkata responded in letter no.CDP/CP/2006 of 14.8.2006 by fixing venue as NITTTR, Kolkata and date and time as 28.8.2006 at 11.00 A.M. for discussion for compliance of order of Hon’ble High Court, Patna in response to the letter dated 12.8.06 of the institution. (ix) That in the meantime the entire development correspondences and the actions taken were communicated to the Director, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, vide letter no. 551 dated 3 21.8.2006 seeking his direction/guidance for compliance of the order of Hon’ble High court, Patna. (x) That in response to letter dated 14.8.06 of NITTTR, Kolkata, I personally went to NITTTR on 28.8.06 and discussed the ways and means for compliance of the order of NITTTR, Kolkata. Photo copies of relevant documents needed by NITTTR, Kolkata were also handed over to them for necessary action. (xi) That the petitioners were also provided with necessary information about the steps taken by respondent no.3 for compliance of the order of Hon’ble High Court, Patna from time to time. (xii) That ultimately a letter from NITTTR, Kolkata in letter no.CDP/CP/2006-3188 dated 5.9.06 has been received in which approval for payment of arrear wages/remuneration to the petitioners has been accorded. But no order has been given for the acceptance of joining of petitioners. As such acceptance of joining of these petitioners still awaits proper and adequate orders from NITTTR, Kolkata. 7. That from the facts and circumstances mentioned above amply prove that the opposite party no.3 has full respect and regard for this Hon’ble Court and he has made his sincere and best efforts for compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court as a result of which the NITTTR, Kolkata (opposite party no.4) has finally sent its approval for payment of arrear wages/remuneration to the petitioner vide letter no. CDP/CP/2006/3188 dated 5.9.2006 which has been annexed as Annexure – M to this show cause, but the said letter does not make any indication for acceptance of joining of the petitioners. 8. That it is respectfully submitted that after getting the approval from NITTTR, Kolkata for payment of arrear wages/remunerations, the petitioners have been directed/requested vide letter no.593 dated 18.9.06 through registered post to receive their arrear wages from Govt. Polytechnic, Muzaffarpur on any working day at earliest. One of the petitioner namely, Niranjan Kumar has already received his arrear wages/ remuneration on 21.9.06 vide Cheque no.301788 dated 19.9.2006. Other petitioners have also been issued cheques in their respective names. The petitioners Ajay Kumar Talukdar, Ajay Kumar Jha and Ramesh Kumar Choudhary have been issued cheques vide Cheque no.301789, 301790 and 4 301791 dated 19.9.2006 respectively and they have also received the amount mentioned in the said cheques. 9. That the deponent respectfully submits that the deponent has again sent a letter to NITTTR, Kolkata vide his letter no.178 dated 19.3.2007, referring his earlier letter no.633 dated 12.12.06, seeking necessary order/direction from NITTTR, Kolkata in order to accept the joining of the petitioners in compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court. The deponent in the said letter, has also referred the letter contained in Memo no.1958 dated 26.9.06 issued by the Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. But inspite of all these efforts made by the deponent no such order/direction has been received by the deponent from the NITTTR, Kolkata either to continue the said scheme in the concerned College or to accept the joining of the petitioners. Since the NITTTR, Kolkata is the controlling and competent body and has got jurisdiction to implement and continue the said scheme, hence the deponent (respondent no.3) finds himself unable to accept the joining of these petitioners under the said scheme which is not in operation since October, 2002 in the light of the direction of the T.T.T.E., Kolkata issued vide letter No. CDP/CP/2002 – 807 dated 23.9.2002. 10. That so far accepting the joining of the petitioners is concerned, in this regard it is respectfully submitted that the scheme under which the petitioners were working already discontinued closed by letter no.CDP/CP/2002 – 807 dated 23.9.02 of T.T.T.I., Kolkata much before the joining of the opposite party no.3 as Principal –in- Charge of the said Polytechnic on 26.5.05. However, after passing of the order of this Hon’ble Court, the opposite party no.3 has sent several letters to NITTTR ( the then TTTI), Kolkata seeking necessary direction regarding acceptance of joining of the petitioner in the light of the order of this Hon’ble Court but no order/direction has yet been received from NITTTR, Kolkata in this regard.” 2. That the scheme, under which the petitioners were working, has been discontinued is not in dispute. 3. In the light of the cause shown by the opposite 5 party no.3, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate disobedience of the order of this court dated 4th April, 2006. 4. No case for invocation of contempt jurisdiction is made out. The contempt application (MJC) stands dismissed accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-