IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4195 of 2009 1. MR. MANTU KHARWAR S/O LATE RAM BACHAN RAM VILL.- BAIJNATH CHAPRA, POST- RANIGANJ BAZAR, DISTT.- BALIA (U.P.) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA FINANCE DEPARTMENT THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, BANKING DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI 2. S.K. SINGHARAY, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER BANK OF BARODA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS D.G.M., CALCUTTA METRO REGION, ROAD 2/7, SHARAL CHAND BOSE, CALCUTTA ----------- 06. 12.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Urging non-compliance of the directions in C.W.J.C. No. 4431 of 2009 it is strenuously contended that the respondents while considering the case of the petitioner afresh have not dealt with and discussed the earlier order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8123 of 2006 (Syed Imtyaz Hussain) in terms of the directions contained in the writ petition to conclude, why the petitioner was not entitled to similar treatment. The judgment of Imtyaz Hussain has been accepted and complied with by the Bank and the person is in service. From paragraph-6 of the fresh order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the opposite parties, this Court is more than satisfied that there has been an adequate consideration of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8123 of 2006. The correctness of the consideration as alleged vis-à-vis Imtyaz Hussain cannot be considered 2 in contempt proceedings. If so aggrieved, the remedy lies in a fresh writ petition to question the order dated 30.7.2009. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)