IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3973 of 2009 Rabindra Mishra, aged about 48 years, son of Late Abhay Nath Mishra, resident of Village Purainia, P.O. Narkatiaganj, P.S. Shikarpur, District West Champaran ….. Petitioner Versus 1. Shri S.K.Mishra, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. Dr. S.P. Singh, Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 3. Dr. Purosottam Singh, Civil Surgeon-cum-CMO, West Champaran, Bettiah 4. The State of Bihar …. Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 9. 11.1.2012 The petitioner has sought initiation of contempt against the opposite parties for non-compliance of the order dated 6.10.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1044 of 2009, by which this Court had quashed the enquiry report dated 31.12.2008, by which the services of the petitioner was terminated and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post he was working with all consequential benefits. On previous occasions, time was granted for filing show cause and supplementary show cause and the Director- in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar was also summoned for compliance of this court’s order. A supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos.1 and 2 i.e. Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar and it has been submitted annexing an order passed in L.P.A. No.337 of 2010that the petitioner’s case was considered by the L.P.A. court and the appeal was disposed - 2 - of in terms of another L.P.A. numbered as L.P.A. No.1623 of 2009, by which one man committee was set up for hearing the grievances of the petitioner and other similarly placed persons. As per the main L.P.A. order, the employees were required to file individual written representation with brief synopsis of their claims along with connected papers to substantiate their claims. In the supplementary show cause an averment has been made that the petitioner is not appearing before the said committee and, therefore, the non- compliance is on account of the petitioner and no latches were committed by the opposite party. Since no one appears on behalf of the petitioner to contest this submission, the application is dismissed on the aforesaid considerations. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )