IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.734 of 2007 MD.SHAKIL AHMAD S/O Late Molana Zafiruddin resident of Mohalla- Beltal (Khanduah) P.O. Biharsarif, PS Laheri, district Nalanda Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sri Shashi Shekhar Sharma, Secretary to Govt. in the department of Public Health Engineering department Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 3. Sri Madan Kumar, Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering department Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 4. Sri Surendra Kumar, Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Public Health Engineering department Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 5. Mr. Arbind Kumar the Superintending Engineer, P.H.E. Circle, Gaya 6. Mr. Parmanand Sharma the Executive Engineer, P.H.E. division, Nawada ----------- 3 05-03-2009 Heard the parties. According to show cause filed on behalf of Opposite Party no.6, the Executive Engineer, P.H.E. division, Nawada, case of the petitioner has been considered by the competent authority pursuant to directions of the writ court and he has been absorbed on a class- IV post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per stand of the State before the writ court petitioner was required to be absorbed on a class-III post and hence, the final decision by the authorities is not in accordance with the stand of the State before the writ court. Learned counsel for the State disputes the aforesaid submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rama Narang vs Ramesh Narang, 2006 (3), PLJR, 226 to submit that a compromise or consent decree is as much as a decree as one passed on adjudication and hence, violation of terms of compromise of a consented decree may also amount to violation of a court’s order attracting action under - 2 - the Contempt of Court’s Act. We find that aforesaid judgement was in relation to a dispute between husband and wife in which a consent order was passed by the court and there was an allegation that such order of the court was willfully violated by one of the parties. In the present case the factual situation is quite different and the judgement of the writ court is not passed upon any consent or compromise between the parties. Further, the writ court issued directions to the concerned authorities to consider the claims of the petitioner and other similarly situated employees in accordance with observation made in the judgement. The respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner and taken a decision. It will not be proper to go into merits of such decision in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to pursue his remedy if he is aggrieved by the decision of the authorities in respect of his absorption on a class- IV post. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)