IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1031 of 2011 Vinod Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 5. 21.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ Court noticing the grievance that the petitioner was working since 8.1.2007 as a Nyay Mitra but was denied wages directed the Sub Divisional Officer to examine his representation. The order did not notice any specified duration of the claim. It was further directed that if the Sub Divisional Officer opined that salary was wrongly withheld he shall proceed to recover the costs of the present litigation incurred by the State Government from the salary of the concerned quite apart from the issue of departmental proceeding against the erring delinquent. On 4.1.2011 the Sub Divisional Officer passed an order under which he noticed the claim of the petitioner in the representation that he was discharging duties. He was satisfied that the petitioner was marking attendance from 12.1.2008 to 20.10.2010. It was also noticed that the proposal for payment received from the Sarpanch and Sachiv was for the period 18.12.2007 to 31.3.2010. The Sub Divisional Officer then proceeded to deal with the issues with regard to the irregularities in the appointment beyond the direction of the Court. The direction to consider his representation for payment of salary and the alleged irregularities in the appointment were entirely different issues. The Court on 17.8.2011 therefore directed the personal appearance of the Sub Divisional Officer who is present today. A fresh show cause has been filed by him enclosing a subsequent order dated 16.9.2011. It allows salary to the petitioner for Rs. 68,500/- from 18.12.2007 till 31.3.2010. It was expected of him that 2 if he was satisfied that the petitioner had marked attendance till 20.10.2010 he would have satisfied himself if the petitioner had worked in between 31.3.2010 and 20.10.2010 or not rather then resort to frivolous technicalities to defeat the order of the Court. However the Court refrains from proceeding further on that aspect because the order of the Court does not mention any specified duration. The subsequent order dated 16.9.2011 states that the Government had to incur unnecessary expense in the court case. If the Sub Divisional Officer has done a complete somersault from his own order dated 4.1.2011 the question arises because of whose conduct had the government incurred wasteful expense. Opposite party no. 4 is present in person and assures the Court that the arrears of Rs. 68,500/- shall be paid by him to the petitioner within a maximum period of one week from today. The Court has no reason to doubt his assurance given to it in the present proceeding at this stage. It is unfortunate that the Court has come across more than one proceeding in the contempt jurisdiction where an attempt is made to evade compliance of the order and show cause is filed raising frivolous objections where none really exists. The proceedings are dragged by the opposite parties. The government continues to incur expenses. Satisfied that they have been able to drag the litigation, finally when the opposite parties find themselves in a bind they quietly come up with an order of compliance which could well have come at the very first date saving frivolous expenses of the government and leaving the Court further time for other matters. Perhaps the time has come for the State Government, after the promulgation of the State litigation Policy in March 2011 to wake up to 3 this issue. The State undoubtedly has a right to contest litigation and also to take a stand in the contempt proceeding to its satisfaction. But that does not vest the authority in the officials of the State to indulge in a battle of wits with the Court. The obligation of the State in assuring access and availability of justice to the citizens is more than adequately emphasized in Articles 38 and 39A of the Constitution of India. The Court expects that at least one Department of the State Government in the Panchayati Raj shall arouse itself to the issue and ensure that such frivolous technicality unnecessarily prolonging the litigation wasting the court’s time and the finance of the State is desisted from. On whose shoulder the burden for the present frivolous litigation cost incurred by the State shall be fastened is left for the Secretary, Panchayati Raj to decide. The proceeding stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)