IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3147 of 2010 1. PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI GOPAL SHARAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KOIRI BARI, POLICE STATION CIVIL LINES DISTRICT GAYA. 2. MANORANJAN PRASAD SINHA, SON OF LATE CHANDRIKA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MARANPUR, POST OFFICE CHAND CHOURA, POLICE STATION CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT GAYA. 3. SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINHA, SON OF SHRI JAMUNA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GOH, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MR. GRIH SHANKAR, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. MR. SANJAY KUMAR, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 4. MR. RAM MADAN KISHORE, THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORAITON, GAYA. With MJC No.3164 of 2010 1. DHIRAJ KANT SON OF DIP NARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUKRA, POLICE STATION BUNIYADGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. 2. SHIV DHARI PRASAD, SON OF LATE GANPAT MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATER, POLICE STATION WAJIRGANJ DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MR. GRIH SHANKAR, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. MR. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 4. MR. RAM MADAN KISHORE, THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. ----------- 05. 27.06.2011 In compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 20.5.2010, Annexure-1 the authorities of the Gaya Municipal Corporation have paid the arrears of salary to the petitioner but not from the date on which they submitted their joining as according to the Municipal Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Corporation who has passed order bearing Memo No.396 dated 2 10.05.2011 petitioners are not entitled for salary from the date on which they submitted their joining as their services have subsequently been terminated. For the period during which the joining of the petitioners stood accepted, counsel for the Gaya Municipal Corporation has produced cheques for payment of salary. Let the cheques produced be accepted by the counsel for the petitioners and delivered to the petitioners. Both the contempt petitions are, accordingly, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order bearing Memo No.396 dated 10.05.2011. Counsel for the petitioners is also requested to grant receipt on the margin of the order sheet indicating receipt of the cheque. Rajesh/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)