IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.664 of 2008 1.SANT KUMAR UPADHYA , son of late Dhato Upadhya, resident of Village & P.O. Rajgir, District Nalanda at present working as Kund Supervisor, Rajgir Lodging house Committee, Rajgir. 2.Kapil Paswan, Son of late Nanhak Paswan, resident of village and P.O. Rajgir, District Nalanda at present working as Kund Sweeper, Rajgir Lodging house Committee, Rajgir. 3.Mohan Ram Mali, @ Mohan Mali, son of Late Etwari Ram, resident of Village Panditpur, P.O. Rajgir, District Nalanda at present working as Gardner, Rajgir Loding house Committee, Rajgir. 4.Lakhan Mali,Son of late Manger Ram, resident of village and P.O. Rajgir, District Nalanda at present working as Gardner, Rajgir Lodging house Committee, Rajgir. --------------------------------Petitioners. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR , through the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 2.Sri Ravindra Pawar, Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna-cum-Chairman, Rajgir Lodging House Committee, Rajgir, District Nalanda. 3.Sri Anand Kishore, fathers name not known to petitioners, the District Magistrate, Nalanda-cum-Vice Chairman, Rajgir Lodging House Committee, Rajgir, District Nalanda. 4.Sri Kuldeep Narayan, father name not known to petitioners, the Sub. Divisional Officer,Rajgir sub.Division cum Secretary, Rajgir Lodging house Committee, Rajgir, District Nalanda. ------------------Contemnor/Opposite parties. ----------- 3 1/4/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the opposite parties. In the opinion of this Court as the amount of salary having been not quantified in the direction issued in the order dated 26.4.2007 in C.W.J.C. No.2063 of 2000, it will be difficult for this Court to hold that the opposite parties are in contempt only on account of holding that the petitioners have been paid lesser amount. 2 This Court, in fact, would not like to say anything in this regard as that may prejudice the case of the petitioners, but this much is clear from reading of the order dated 26.4.2007 there were two cut off dates, one for the purpose of payment of salary and another for the passing of order. If the petitioners have understood that the authorities have made payment in part, and they were aggrieved by the outcome of the orders they had remedy else where, but of course not in a contempt petition. That being so, this Court will not find any merit in this application and accordingly the same is dismissed. It goes without saying that that dismissal of this contempt application will not stand in any way as a bar in case the petitioners would raise their claim for payment of salary for any period. Such claim of salary in fact will have to be gone into strictly in accordance with law. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)