1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.720 of 2009 PARMANAND JHA son of Late Nitya Nand Jha, resident of village- Chakdeha, P.S.- Purnehiya, District- Sheohar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, the Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Jay Chandra Srivastav, the District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. 5. Sri Thakur Manoranjan Prasad, the District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran, Motihari. 6. Sri Baleshwar Prasad Yadav, the Area Education Officer, Raxaul, District- East Champaran, Motihari. ----------- 3 04.09.2009 Heard. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties, copy of which has been served on the counsel for the petitioner today in Court. This application is filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties alleging violation/ disregarding the order dated 17th January, 2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12208 of 2006 whereby the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order considering the documents enclosed with the representation including the copy of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7737 of 1991. Pursuant to the order a representation (Annexure-2) was filed by the petitioner enclosing copy of the documents including a copy of the order dated 27th April, 1994 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7737 of 1991. The 2 Director, Primary Education on receipt of the representation passed an order as per the memo no. 1503 dated 7th August, 2007 (Annexure-3) of the contempt application. The petitioner on receipt of the said order represented against it by filing a representation on 21st November, 2007 (Annexure-4) which according to the petitioner has remained unconsidered till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director Primary Education, Government of Bihar while passing the order vide Annexure-3 did not take into consideration the order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 7737 of 1991 as referred in the order of this Court, and as such, the order of the Court has not been complied with and for this he is liable to be proceeded with. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the direction of the Court was to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner taking into consideration the documents enclosed therewith including the copy of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7737 of 1991. It is further submitted that on perusal of the order as contained in Annexure-3, it would appear that the Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar has passed a reasoned order while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner in the representation was that his 3 services should have been confirmed in the service of State w.e.f. 02.01.1972 as his services were confirmed by the Governing Body of the school and not from later date. It is submitted that school was nationalized w.e.f. 08.07.1976, however petitioner since did not possess the requisite qualification his services were not taken over from the above date. The services of the petitioner were taken over w.e.f. 30the September, 1982 as a Matric trained on completion of training and thereafter on completion of 12 years the petitioner was allowed the super time scale of pay as per the laid down promotional rules for teachers and continued to receive the benefits allowed from time to time and therefore requesting after twenty five years for change of the date of taking over his service is not justified, and accordingly, representation was rejected. Having considered the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the petition as well as the show cause as also the order vide Annexure-3 passed on the representation of the petitioner, I am of the view that the Director, Primary Education has passed the reasoned order in the light of the order dated 17.01.2007, and as such, in my opinion this Contempt application need not proceed any further. It is made clear that this Court has not 4 expressed any opinion on the merits of the order as contained in Annexure-3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is at liberty to assail the order contained in Annexure-3 in an appropriate proceeding. This contempt application stands disposed of. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)