IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1900 of 2006 RAM NARAIN SINGH & ORS. Versus MADAN MOHAN SINGH & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. C.M.Saxena, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Mishra, Advocate For the Electricity Board : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. B.K.P.Sinha, Government Pleader-III Mrs. Sunita Kumari, Junior Counsel to Government Pleader-III ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------- Dated, the 31st July, 2008. After having heard the counsel for the petitioner, we find it difficult to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have disobeyed the order dated 7th March, 2006. Rather it seems to us that the present contempt proceeding is an abuse of process of Court. As a matter of fact the writ petition filed by the petitioner was withdrawn by the petitioner. The observations that have been made by the Court in the order dated 7th March, 2006, reads thus: - “However, considering the fact that colleagues of the petitioners, who till date are the members of the unified cadre of Engineers of the Board and on account of fortuitous circumstances were serving the Board in the State of Jharkhand on the relevant date and have got the benefit of the enhanced retirement age with effect from 31.10.2004 and petitioners were deprived of the said benefit on account of circumstances beyond their control - 2 - which has caused heart burning leading to the filing of the present writ case and having appreciated their concern. I permit them to invite the attention of the Board to the fortuitous circumstances which has acted against them by filing representation which should receive appropriate attention by the Board as Board being a Model Employer should always come out with such policy decision which takes care of the genuine grievances of the Engineers and employees of the Board and does not discriminate between employees of the Board.” 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid observations the petitioner made representation and that representation has been disposed of by an authority of the Board on 26th September, 2006. A copy of the said consideration is annexed as Annexure-A with the show-cause dated 16th March, 2007. 3. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, atleast after the show cause was served upon the petitioner, that ought to be challenged in appropriate proceedings but that has not been done. The legality and correctness of the order dated 26th September, 2006 cannot be put in issue in contempt jurisdiction. 4. M.J.C. is dismissed accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-