IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2602 of 2005 Mohammad Manzoor son of late Noor Mohammad, resident of village Naya Tola Mornish, P.S. Maniari, District Muzaffarpur(Bihar)-petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri N.K.Lal, Chief Engineer(Mechanical) Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna 3.Sri Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Circle, Muzaffarpur 4.Sri Ratneshwar Kumar Singh, Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Irrigation Mechanical Division Muzaffarpur 5.Sri Kedar Nath Singh, Sub Divisional Officer, Irrigation Mechanical Sub Division,Muzaffarpur ----Opp.parties ----------- 3. 13.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has prayed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 1.4.2005 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 2607 of 2000. From a perusal of the said order it is evident that this Court had clearly observed that it would not be appropriate to issue any positive direction to the respondents to pay the particular replaced scale as claimed by the petitioner. It had only observed that the petitioner if so advised may represent his case before the respondent concerned and in 2 case it is so done the same would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by speaking order by the concerned respondent. From a perusal of Annexures 5 and 6 filed by the petitioner himself through supplementary affidavit it is evident that the order dated 17.9.2005 followed by the order dated 6.10.2005 superseding the earlier order dated 17.9.2005 was passed by the competent authority, namely, the Chief Engineer (Mechanical). Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the said order is fit to be set aside being contrary to legal principles. This Court in its contempt jurisdiction is only concerned as to whether the authorities have complied with the direction of this Court or not. There was no positive direction of this Court so far the main case of the petitioner is concerned and the only liberty granted to the petitioner was to file representation which in turn was directed to be disposed of in accordance with law by a speaking order. The order dated 6.10.2005 3 having been passed with respect to the claim of the petitioner, the order under contempt dated 1.4.2005 stands complied with and it is not open to the petitioner to claim that there is any wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner if he is aggrieved by the order dated 6.10.2005 to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/