IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2251 of 2008 MATHURA CHOUDHARY aged about 64 years, S/o Late Lakshman Choudhary, resident at Mohalla Kamrudinganj near Anurag Park, P.S. Biharsharif, Nalanda, Dist- Nalanda.-petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Anjani Kumar Singh, S/o not known, the Principal Secretary, HumanResources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.Ran Vijay Prasad, S/o not known, the Director (Administration)-cum-Joint Secretary Secondary Human Resource Development Department, Bihar, Patna 4.I.D.S. Dhariwal, S/o not known, the Accountant General (A & E) Bihar, Patna------------------Contemnor---------opp.parties ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the State :Mr.A. Amanullah, S.C. 17 M/S M.K.Pathak, J.G.Khan, A.C. to SC 17 ------- 6. 19.2.2010 In the third supplementary show cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.3, the Director (Administration)-cum-Joint Secretary Secondary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar it is stated that the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner by Memo No. 745 dated 14.8.2008, by which pension of the petitioner was reduced by 30% under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, has been withdrawn by order No.93 dated 21.1.2010. Learned Standing Counsel No. 17 submits that after the aforesaid withdrawal no contempt in the eye of law is made out. It is submitted that the petitioner is raising grievance regarding another show cause issued with respect to another matter on the 2 basis of which another order contained in Memo No. 744 dated 14.8.2008 was issued by which 20% pension of the petitioner has been directed to be deducted, but the same is not at all concerned with the writ petition, being C.W.J.C.No. 13362 of 2004, and the order dated 28.3.2005 under contempt passed therein. From a perusal of the said order dated 28.3.2005 it is evident that by it the notice dated 28.10.2004 had been set aside in respect of the matter relating to the request of the Lokayukt to the State Government, whereas the other order relates to a different matter. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case for proceeding under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court is made out with respect to the order dated 28.3.2005 of this Court. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/