IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1821 of 2006 SAKALDEO PASWAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner :Mr. Randhir Kumar No.1 For the opposite parties :Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, JC to AG ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 09th July, 2008. The writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of on 09th April, 2006 by the following order: “The petitioner has worked as daily wage worker, as would be evidenced from the certificates issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bakhari under the District Begusarai, being Annexure-2 series to the writ petition. If the petitioner has not been paid for the work done, let the same be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. It is stated that the petitioner was deputed to the Najarat of the same Sub-Division on deputation. Deputation of a daily wage worker is unknown in the service jurisprudence. An office, which requires to appoint a daily wage worker for the purpose of attending the work of that office, is competent to appoint such daily wage worker, unless by rules made, another office has been authorized to engage such worker. There being no rule authorizing the Sub-Divisional Officer to engage daily wage worker for the Najarat of the Sub-Division, question of the Sub-Divisional Officer deputing a daily wage worker to the Najarat did never arise.” - 2 - 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that due amount was not paid within two months as directed in the order dated 9th April, 2006 and that necessitated filing of this contempt application. 3. In response to the contempt application, cause has been shown by the opposite parties and it is stated that the claim of the petitioner was examined and Rs.33,671/- was found payable which has already been paid. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the show cause read thus: “3.That in compliance with order of this Hon’ble Court the claim of Rs.33671/- has already been paid to the petitioner against the work done by him. The said amount has been paid vide cheque No.0930702 and 0930703 dated 13.9.2006 of S.B.I.,Begusarai. A copy of payment receipt dated 13.9.2006 is being annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A to the show cause. 4. That it is relevant to state here that before issuance of cheque for Rs.33671/- the deponent examined the claim of the petitioner and accordingly passed a reasoned order vide memo no.715 dated 11.9.2006. A copy of reasoned order dated 11.9.2006 is being annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B to the show cause.” 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner was for more than Rs.42,000/-, but a sum of Rs.33,671/- has only been paid. In other words, he assails the legality and correctness of the order dated 11.09.2006. 5. We are afraid, in the contempt jurisdiction the legality - 3 - and correctness of the order dated 11.09.2006 cannot be permitted to be raised. 6. We find no justification to entertain this MJC. It is disposed of accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil