IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.622 of 2010 Baidya Nath Lal Das, son of Late Sunakant Lal Das, resident of Hari Das Tola, P.O. Haripur Dih-Tola, District Madhubani, Retired Asssistant Superintendent, Physical Education Benipatti, Madhubani…………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 2. Vivek Singh, Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 3. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, District Education Officer, Madhubani. 4. Kumar Rakesh, Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani. 5. D.S. Dhariwal, Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 6. Name not know Mr. Pramod Kumar, the Accountant General, U.P. Allahabad……………..Contemners/Opposite Parties ----------- 4 20.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. The writ application of the petitioner was disposed of, along with a large number of other writ applications, by a common order, in which certain directions were issued. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner had brought to the knowledge of the concerned District Provident Fund Officer that the said general order was passed in his writ 2 application also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the said order contained general directions, all the District Provident Fund Officers were supposed to act on their own and no representation of the petitioner was required. This Court does not think so. General orders were passed with certain guidelines to the concerned District Provident Fund Officers. Petitioner should have brought to the knowledge of the concerned District Provident Fund Officers that the general orders were passed in his case also. But this he has not done. Hence this Court does not find that any case of contempt is made out. The application is dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)