IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2097 of 2006 BIHAR STATE DAFADAR -CHAUKIDAR Association/Panchayat through its Chairman namely Ram Mohan Singh son of Late Ram Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla/Village Somera, Police Station Chakia District East champaran, A/p working as Dafadar in Chakia, P.S. District East Champaran. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR . 2.Sri A.K.Chodhary, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.Sri Afzal Amanullah, the Secretary Cum Commissioner, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar. 4.Sri Ashok kumar Sinha, the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police), Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.Sri Afzal Amanullah, the Secretary cum Commissioner, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6.Sri Rameshwar Pd. The District Magistrate, East Champaran. ----------- 15 31/3/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer in this application is for initiating a proceeding for contempt for violation of order of this Court dated 16.1.2006 in C.W.J.C. No.10092 of 2005. In order to appreciate the said submission as with regard to violation of order this Court would first quote the order dated 16.1.2006 itself which reads as follows:- “The subject matter of the instant writ petition was the impugned order of termination. By the impugned order payment of the salaries of the Dafadar and Chaukidar had also been stopped. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State whereby the State is brought on record the order dated 7.12.2005 by which the impugned order, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, has been cancelled by the State and directed maintainance of the Annexure-2 to the writ petition, being the original order of 2 appointment. In such view of the matter, the grievances of the petitioner have been met. There is nothing further to be done in the writ petition. The same is disposed of.” In the opinion of this Court there was no such direction in the aforesaid order dated 16.1.2006 which was capable of being defied. The declaration made by this Court that the order of original appointment of the members of the petitioner association had got revived, cannot be said to be a direction by this Court. At this stage this Court also may take note of earlier order in this very proceeding on 9.2.2010 which reads as follows:- “The whole case for contempt of the petitioner is based upon a circular letter dated 20.12.1995 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition which, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, has been directed to be maintained by the order under contempt in view of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the writ petition on the basis of which the writ petition was disposed of by the order under contempt dated 16.1.2006. The said circular dated 20.12.1995 has already been quashed by this Court by order dated 27.8.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No.6997 of 2003. In the aforementioned situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a short adjournment to consider the matter. As prayed for by her, put up the matter in the same position on 15.2.2010.’ From reading of the aforementioned order, it would be clear that revival of Annexure-2, the original order of appointment of the members of the petitioner association was based on a Circular of the State Government dated 20.12.1995 which was already quashed by this Court by order dated 27.8.2003 passed in 3 C.W.J.C. No.6997 of 2003. In that view of the matter, when the respondents have taken a plea in their supplementary show cause that a new rule in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 has already been framed on 25.8.2006 and an advertisement also has been made in the year, 2007 for filling up the posts, this Court at least in its contempt jurisdiction would not be in a position to hold that the opposite parties had even remotely violated any portion of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 16.1.2006. Reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner that the said order had already formed part of the writ proceeding by way of Annexure-9, in fact would not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner specially when the subsequent decisions as noted above, have made the entire structure of the cadre of Chaukidar absolutely different. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)