IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6420 of 2002 1. Parmanand Mishra Son of Late Shreekant Mishra resident of village Kathani, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani. 2. Sahdeo Mandal son of Budhan Mandal, resident of village Rajnagar Station Road, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani. 3. Rajdeo Singh son of Keshari Singh, resident of village Kewalpatti, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani. 4. Deo Narayan Mandal son of Tapsi Mandal, resident of village Raghopur Belat, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani 5. Subhadra Jha son of Sri Shobha Kant Jha, resident of village Gurmaha, P.S. Lohat, District Madhubani. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Executive Engineer, West Koshi Canal Division No. 1, Rajnagar, Madhubani. 3. The Superintending Engineer, West Koshi Canal Division No. 1, Rajnagar, Madhubani. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mrs. Pallavi Mishra & Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C. XVI ------- 4 20/01/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are Ex Servicemen. Under a policy of the State government they came to be appointed as Security Guards giving them benefit of the past military service. They were terminated from the appointment on 15.4.1989. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5198 of 1989 set aside the termination order on 3.7.1998. The petitioners sought to give their joining on 1.9.1998 which was rejected by the respondents on 9.9.1998. M.J.C. No. 3249 of 1998 was then filed by the petitioners for disobedience of the orders of this Court when on 15.1.2002 the respondents passed orders reinstating the petitioners with effect from the date of their termination i.e. 15.4.1989. - 2 - The petitioners now lay claim for arrears of salary from 1.9.1998 to 6.2.2002 after their reinstatement. Learned counsel for the State opposing the application submits that the petitioners have admitted their appointment on daily wages in paragraph 8 of the writ application and, therefore, in terms of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5198 of 1989 they stood reinstated in that capacity only. A daily wager is entitled to the wages for the days he had worked. Since the petitioners have not worked during that period, they are not entitled to their daily wages even. Non compliance of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5198 of 1989 and institution of a contempt application in respect thereof is one aspect of the matter. In contempt jurisdiction, the contemnor is punished adequately for flouting the orders of the Court. That does not lead to the end of the matter. This Court in this writ application possesses the authority to give appropriate direction with regard to that aspect of the matter for which there has been noncompliance. The matter does not end when and what might have been appropriate punishment in a contempt proceeding. The duty of the Court is to do justice. The acceptance of the argument of the respondents shall be giving a premium to the respondents themselves by giving them a right to flout the orders of the Court, then comply the orders of the Court and then urge that since they have subsequently complied with the order of the Court, they cannot be punished for contempt and whatever may be their conduct in between is irrelevant. - 3 - The petitioners are held entitled to their wages in between the period 1.9.1998 to 6.2.2002. From the facts of the case it is more than apparent that the petitioners were willing to work. They had the authority of an order of this Court behind them. The respondents refused to take work from them on frivolous ground. Let the arrears of wages be paid to the petitioners for the period in question within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the facts of this case, it is open to the State to hold an enquiry and fix responsibility for the lapses of whom the petitioners have been deprived to be paid their wages when the work was not taken from them and recover the arrears of the petitioners’ salary from the salary of such person. With the above direction, this writ application is allowed. (Navin Sinha, J.) AMIN