IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3343 of 2008 Akhileshwar Prasad, son of Sri Ramdin Prasad, resident of village Igwan, P.S. Haspura in the district of Aurangabad ……….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Sri Deepak Prasad, son of (presently not known to the petitioner), the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.Sri Dr.Shatrughan Prasad Singh, son of (presently not known to the petitioner) Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4.Sri Dr.Arun Kumar Sinha, son of (presently not known to the petitioner), the Regional Deputy Director, Health, Magadh Range, Gaya 5.Sri Dr.Parshuram Prasad, son of Late Dhurandhar Ram, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad ………. Opp.Parties ----------- 6. 25/08/2010 This contempt application was filed for alleged violation of order dated 25.7.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.No.15026 of 2006. Since the said order was not complied with by the opposite parties for two years, petitioner was compelled to file this contempt application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the contempt application and after two years of passing of the order by this Court, opposite parties have finally completed handing over charge to the petitioner. However, opposite parties are nurturing grudge against petitioner for he having moved this Court and getting an order under which they had to ensure handing over 2 charge to the petitioner of the post of Clerk in the office of the Civil Surgeon. He submits that the Civil Surgeon is also bitter about petitioner having moved this Court in writ and thereafter in contempt and therefore in a petty matter i.e. for his absence for three days on the ground of illness for which petitioner had submitted an application for casual leave, a show cause notice has been issued to him. The ground in the show cause notice is that petitioner did not co-operate in preparing D.C.Bills, whereas as per show cause reply filed by the petitioner, he had already completed D.C.Bills and had handed over the same to another clerk for being placed before the Civil Surgeon. He submits that this shows some bias in the minds of the authority against petitioner for having approached this Court in contempt. He submits that petitioner apprehends that he may be further victimized by the opposite parties because of that act of the petitioner. Merely on the basis of apprehension no action can be initiated against opposite parties. However, it is made clear that if any act of the opposite parties shows that they 3 are unnecessarily making an attempt to victimize or harass the petitioner without any valid and cogent reasons, this Court may view the matter seriously. With the above observations, contempt application is disposed of. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)