IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2601 of 2006 MR.NAND KISHORE SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimlesh Kr. Jha, Adv. For the Opposite parties : Mr.Mukesh Kr. Thakur, Adv. ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 17th July, 2008. After having heard counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the contempt application and the cause shown by opposite party nos. 2 and 3, we are satisfied that this contempt application is devoid of any substance. In paragraph 5 to 7 of the show-cause, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have stated thus: - “5. That the petitioner thereafter filed a contempt application bearing M.J.C. No.811/1989 before this Hon’ble Court, however, the Hon’ble Court by its order dated 4.9.1994 as contained in Annexure-3 to the contempt petition disposed off the contempt application considering the compliance made by the Agency. However, the Hon’ble Court granted liberty to the petitioner that if the petitioner has any grievance, he may represent before the authorities concerned for the payment of salary for the period claimed by the petitioner, i.e. from 1983. The Hon’ble Court, however, did not express any opinion regarding the claim of the petitioner for the remaining period. From the order passed in the contempt application it transpires that the admissible differential salary as well as allowances of the petitioner amounting to Rs.14,654.85 has already been paid from the period 29.3.1988 to 26.4.1989. - 2 - 6. That in pursuance of direction issued by this Hon’ble Court in the contempt petition, the Board of Directors of the Agency took up the matter in its meeting regarding claim of the petitioner for the remaining period and after due deliberations, the Director of the Agency issued an order contained in memo no.213 dated 27.2.1997 whereby it was decided that since the petitioner was as a daily wager prior to approaching this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he is only entitled for salary as a daily wager clerk. The said decision has already been communicated to the petitioner. 7. That from the facts as enumerated here-in-above, it transpires that the petitioner has deliberately and willfully misled this Hon’ble Court by not annexing the order contained in memo no.213 dated 27.2.1997. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the said decision of the Agency, he would have immediately challenged it in a fresh writ application before this Hon’ble Court, but instead of challenging the decision of the Agency, after about 10 years he has field a frivolous contempt petition alleging disobedience of order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3862/1988. From the facts it also transpires that the petitioner may be awarded heavy cost by this Hon’ble Court for suppressing the material fact in the contempt application. As such, the opposite parties have committed no contempt of the Hon’ble Court’s order, rather every order of this Hon’ble Court has been complied within in its true letter and spirit by the opposite parties.” 2. The aforesaid facts have not been denied as no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. 3. We are satisfied that this contempt application is liable to the rejected and is rejected. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-