IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3072 of 2007 ISHWAR SOREN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Praveen Kumar,Advocate For the State: Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha A.C. to Govt. Pleader No.15 --- 5. 29.6.2009 The petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged violation of the order dated 20.7.1998 passed by this Court. By the said order, it was directed that the Director, Secondary Education shall examine the grievance of the petitioner and find out under what circumstance for such a long period neither his joining was accepted nor any fresh order was passed for his transfer, and while doing so, the Director was also required to consider the claim of the petitioner for salary for the period he may be found entitled. Thereafter by the order dated 14.2.2001, the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna examined the case of the petitioner and he came to the conclusion that for the period from 20.9.1995 to 22.9.1996 the petitioner’s joining having not been accepted, he is entitled to salary for the said period. The period from 23.9.1996 to 5.12.1996, for which the petitioner had been directed to join but he did not join on account of ill health, can be treated as a period on duty on the basis of an application for leave to be submitted by the petitioner and his service can be regularized. For the period from 6.12.1996 to 20.7.1998, it was found that the petitioner made no attempt to get himself posted and he was not present on duty during this period and accordingly, the said period can be regularized only after treating the same as extraordinary leave. For the remaining period from 21.7.1998 to the date of his actual joining on the post of Headmaster on 22.11.1999, it was decided that the matter can be considered after the approval of the Finance Department. As a matter of fact, by the said order the Director, Secondary Education had expressed the view that the entire matter of regularization should be decided by the Finance Department. In the meantime, the petitioner twice approached this Court by filing the writ petitions, the first of which being C.W.J.C. No.433/2003 was disposed of by order dated 31.1.2003 observing that after the reference was made to the Finance Department no final decision seems to have been taken in the matter. Again the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.3029 of 2004 challenging the order dated 14.2.2001, but the same was dismissed holding that there is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ Court interferes with the finding of fact only when it is shown that the same is perverse whereas the finding of the Director does not suffer from any such infirmity and it was further directed that in the light of the impugned order, the Finance Department shall take a decision, if not already taken in accordance with law. Thereafter by an order dated 22.10.2008, the Director, Secondary Education has referred to the earlier order dated 14.2.2001 and the advice of the Finance Department which had stated that it was not a case of regularization of service, rather it is an administrative matter and with respect to the same, the Administrative Department will take action in accordance with the Rules and accordingly for the period from 21.7.1998 to 22.11.1999, it was decided to treat the petitioner on duty. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the further fact that the order dated 14.2.2001 passed subsequent to the order under contempt dated 20.7.1998 has been upheld by this Court rejecting the contention of the petitioner against him, no case for proceeding under the contempt jurisdiction of the Court arises in the present matter. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)