IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CASE No.5049 of 2010 ==================================================== INDRADEO PRASAD, SON OF LATE GANGA BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- LALBAGH, P.O. AND P.S. SHEIKHPURA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA :-- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, NAMELY, SRI ANUP MUKHERJEE, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. SRI GIRISH SHANKAR SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SRI ADITYA KUMAR DAS, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD, NALANDA, BIHARSHARIF. 4. THE ZILA PARISHAD NALANDA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAMELY, SRI ADITYA KUMAR DAS, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN, NALANDA, AT BIHARSHARIF :-- CONTEMNORS..RESPONDENTS. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: Mr. KAUSHALESH CHOUDHARY, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Awadhesh Pd. Sinha, Advocate. Mr. A.K.Mishra, A.C. to S.C.7. ==================================================== 2. 01.07.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. In compliance of the order of the High Court dated 23.07.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 11615 of 2010, Annexure-1 Zila Parishad, Nalanda has considered the request of the petitioner for grant of A.C.P. as also Non- practising Allowance and has rejected the same on the ground that A.C.P. is not admissible to the employees of the Zila Parishad and Non- practising Allowance is also not admissible to 2 the petitioner as the same is admissible only to the employees of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department. While passing the said order dated 03.12.2010 it is also stated that petitioner has not filed any declaration that he is not practicing privately. In this connection petitioner invites my attention to Annexure-5 of the writ petition which is a declaration filed by the petitioner before the authorities that he is not practicing. Aforesaid aspect of the matter shall be considered when petitioner proceeds to challenge the order dated 03.12.2010. 3. This contempt application is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order bearing Memo No. 573 dated 03.12.2010, Annexure-A to the show-cause filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 4. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)