IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1907 of 2005 JAGDISH PRASAD MEHTA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Kr. Jain For the respondents: Mr. Rajiv Kr. Singh, JC to GA VI --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 17th July, 2008 The petitioners approached this court for a direction to the respondents to accept their posting at their work places in Building Construction Department ( Gardening Division). 2. The writ petition was disposed of on 25.4.2005 with the following direction: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into the merit of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioners should represent before respondent no.2 ventilating their grievances and in case any representation is filed by them, the same would be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order by respondent no.2 within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation.” 3. This contempt petition (MJC) has been taken out by the present petitioners alleging that the order dated 25.4.2005 has not been complied with. 2 4. The opposite parties have filed show cause. A supplementary show cause was also filed by them. It is apparent there from that in compliance of the order dated 25.4.2005, an order has been passed on 23.9.2005. We are not persuaded by the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that it was the respondent no.2 who was required to pass the order dated 23rd September, 2005, but the same was not passed by that authority. 5. No case for contempt is made out. 6. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that the matter is under consideration before the Engineer-in- Chief. If that was so, he ought not to have pressed the matter for consideration before this court but he did and, therefore, we observed that the petitioners have no case in this contempt petition. 7. The counsel for the petitioners would then submit that the liberty may be granted to the petitioners to assail the legality and correctness of the order dated 23rd September, 2005. 8. We are afraid, no liberty is required from the court. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of 23rd September, 2005, it is for them to decide the course as may be advised. 3 9. Be that as it may, this contempt application (MJC) is misconceived and is rejected, accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/