IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3605 of 2009 BISHNU MAHTHA @ BISHNUDEO MAHTHA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . ----------- 3/ 23/2/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. On the writ petition a grievance was raised for non-payment of arrears of salary and current salary, though he continued to discharge duties, with no orders of punishment much less any departmental proceeding. The Court directed the Principal Secretary to examine the grievances of the petitioner as to why salary was being withheld without any order of punishment and more particularly if the petitioner was discharging his duties as alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner continued to discharge duties without salary and superannuated on 31.10.2007. During his service tenure no show cause notice as mentioned in paragraph-5 of the fresh order dated 26.11.2009 annexed as Annexure-A to the show cause was ever served on him either on 5.12.2005 or 9.12.2006. From Annexure-B it is apparent that the respondents have commenced a proceeding only after his superannuation on grounds of an appointment secured allegedly on basis of forged documents. The submission therefore is 2 that if he continued to discharge duties without any punishment during the service tenure, and which is not disputed in the show cause, he is entitled to salary for the period that he has worked. Learned counsel for the opposite parties from Annexure-A submits that an enquiry was held as far back as 26.5.2005 into the appointment of the petitioner. He was issued a show cause on 5.12.2005 vide letter No.275 and on 9.12.2006 vide letter No.3115 to which the petitioner did not respond. The order dated 26.11.2009 specifically arrives at a conclusion of an appointment secured through forged documents. Proceedings under Section-43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules have been initiated against the petitioner after his superannuation on 3.2.2011. The directions in the writ petition were to examine the claims for salary and if duty was being discharged, to pay the same. The law stands settled that an illegal appointment shall not vest a claim for salary merely on basis of discharge of duties. Keeping that legal principle in mind, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the petitioner, as urged in the order dated 26.11.2009, this Court finds it difficult to proceed further in the contempt jurisdiction and start fresh enquiry and 3 examine facts as urged on behalf of the petitioner that no show cause notice was given to him while he was in service. These are matters which can more appropriately be examined in a writ petition if the petitioner is so advised and questions the order dated 26.11.2009 and the proceeding initiated against him on 3.2.2011. The jurisdiction of the Contempt Court being limited to the nature of the directions given, the Court finds it difficult to proceed any further. The proceedings stand disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)