IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3488 of 2009 BIHAR RAJYA PANCHAYAT SEWAK SANGH, District Branch Nalanda having its office Prakhand Karyala Bihar Sharif through its President Sita Ram Pandey, son of Sri Chandeshwar Pandey resident of village Bara Kharjama PS Noor Sarai District Nalanda, presently posted as Panchayat Sewak at Block Office Ben, District Nalanda.......... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Sri Bharm Pratap Sharma, Secretary Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna 2. Dr. Deepak Prasad, the Secretary Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Secretiariat, Patna 4. Sri Sunil Barthwal, the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 5. Sri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal the District Magistrate cum Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif 6. Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 7. Sri Praveen Kumar Gupta, the District Establishment Committee, Nalanda at Biharsharif, through its Chairman ...... Opposite parties -Respondents ----------- 05- 9/3/2011 Heard Mr. Parmeshwar Vishwakarma for the petitioner, and Mr. Ritesh Kumar no.1, learned Assistant Counsel to AAG 14. This application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed by the petitioner of CWJC No. 8886 of 2005, for the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 30.4.2009, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with the direction to respondent no.5 to dispose of the representations of the Panchayat Sevaks of Nalanda district expeditiously. The contemners have placed on record their show-cause wherein it is stated that respondent 2 no.5, the District Magistrate of Nalanda at Biharsharif, considered the cases of 59 eligible Panchayat Sevaks, out of whom 58 Panchayat Sevaks have been granted the benefit of Assured Career Progression scheme, vide memo no.567/Panchayat, dated 29.9.2009. In so far as the 59th candidate is concerned, it is stated that he had received his service book, and despite several letters he has not returned the same to the concerned authorities as a result of which it has been concluded that he is not entitled to the benefit. It is well settled that a person who has no regard for administrative discipline, and lack in respect for the prescribed authority, is not entitled to be heard in contempt jurisdiction. 2. In that view of the matter, we are convinced that the order in question has been complied with, and nothing survives for consideration. This MJC application is accordingly disposed of. mrl ( S K Katriar )