IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2922 of 2004 ASHOK KUMAR son of Sri Ramautar Ram, resident Of Mohalla Nelband Tola, Purani Sahar, Ward No.3 P.O. and P.S. Daudnagar,Dist.Aurangabad-petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Secretary cum Commissioner, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar New Secretariat, Patna-1 2.Dr.Chandresh Vikram Singh, Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad 3.Dr.Samsu Joha Ahsan, Prabhari Medical Officer Obra 4.Dr.Kalpnath Singh, Prabhari Medical Officer, Dihra(Obra)Dist. Aurangabad-------Opp. parties ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.N.Ganguly For the State :Mr.A.Amanullah,S.C.17 ---- 7. 13.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The direction of this Court in the order under contempt was to pay the minimum wages to the petitioner as are payable to an ordinary labourer right from the date of his appointment. In the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties it is stated that the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.48010/- for his working period from November, 1996 to 6th January, 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved that no payment has been made thereafter although the petitioner has been working on regular post as it is stated in the 2 reply to the show cause. He is also aggrieved by the rejection of his representation for payment after 6th January, 2000 as contained in order vide Memo No. 254 dated 23.5.2009 in which it is stated that the services of the petitioner have come to an end from 6th January, 2000 and therefore there is no question of making payment to him. The order has been passed in the context of the representation made by the petitioner in which he has admitted that he is not being permitted to mark his attendance although he has continued to work. No such issue as to whether the petitioner was actually working after 6th January, 2000 has been decided in the writ petition and only the direction was made to pay him the minimum wages as are payable to an ordinary labourer right from the date of his appointment. In the above circumstances, no case for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties is made out since there is no violation of the order dated 24.9.2004 of this Court. 3 The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2009 (Annexure-7) it is open to him to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/