IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.214 of 2008 1. PRAMESHWAR THAKUR, S/O LATE MAHESH THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BASATPUR, P.O.-SAKURABAD, P.S.-PUR BIGHA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD. 2. DINESH PRASAD, SON OF GOPAL RAM, RESIDENT OF MUNNA CHAK, BEHIND COMMERCE COLLEGE, PURBI GALI, P.S.-PATRAKAR NAGAR, DISTRICT-PATNA. 3. SANJAY RAJAK, SON OF MURAT RAJAK, RESIDENT OF EAST LOHANIPUR, RAILWAY HUNDER MIDDLE SCHOOL, P.S.-KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT-PATNA. 4. RAM PRIT THAKUR, SON OF LATE SARYUG THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GARAYAN, P.S.-MANSURCHAK, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. 5. SHYAM KUMR, SON OF LATE RAMCHANDRA RAM, RESIDENT OF ‘A’ BLOCK, P.M.C.H., P.S.- PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA. 6. SANTOSH KUMAR, SON OF MOHAN MISHRA, RESIDENT OF ‘A’ BLOCK, P.M.C.H., QUARTER NO.-1. P.S.- PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA. 7. SANJAY KUMAR, SON OF GANGA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF KHAJUR BANNA, PATNA-7, P.S.-SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT-PATNA. 8. PARWATI DEVI, W/O BISHWANATH RAJAK, RESIDENT OF KHAJANCHI ROAD, CHAMTOLI, KALI ASTHAN, BANKIPUR, PATNA. 9. LAKSHMAN RAJAK, SON OF LATE NATHUNI RAJAK, RESIDENT OF MADAN LAL JAIN GALI, C/O AJAD PATH, P.S.-KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA. 10. DAULATI DEVI @ DAULATIYA DEVI, W/O CHHATHU RAM, RESIDENT OF CHAINA KOTHI, LODIPUR, P.S.- BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT-PATNA. 11. URMILA DEVI, W/O DENNA RAM, RESIDENT OF POLICE LINE, NEAR MANDIR, DISTRICT-PATNA. 12. AJAY KUMAR, SON OF KANHAI RAM, RESIDENT OF P.M.C.H. CAMPUS, P.O.-BANKIPUR, P.S.- PIRHABORE, DISTRICT-PATNA. 13. LAGANWARTI DEVI, W/O KANHAI RAM, RESIDENT OF P.M.C.H. CAMPUS, P.O.-BANKIPUR, P.S.- PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA. 14. BACHCHU KUMAR @ BACHCHU RAM, S/O LATE PANNU RAM, RESIDENT OF PMCH CAMPUS, P.S.-PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA. 15. RAM KUMAR, S/O LATE INDER RAM, RESIDENT OF PMCH CAMPUS, P.S.-PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA. 16. DILIP KUMAR, SON OF BUTTI RAM, RESIDENT OF PMCH ‘C’ BLOCK, P.S.-PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT- PATNA. ……………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SRI R.J.M. PILLAI, THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DR. S.N. MISHRA, THE DIRECTOR, INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF CARDIOLOGY, PATNA. 4. DR. GEETA PRASAD, THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DR. GEETA PRASAD, THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES AND FAMILY WELFARE INSTITUTE, PATNA. 6. DR. R.N. PANDEY, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 2 7. SRI DEEPAK KUMAR, THE SECRETARY-CUM- COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 8. SRI SIYA RAM MAHTO, THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 9. SRI JAMIRUDDIN ANSARI, THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 10. SRI AMIR SUHANI, THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 11. SRI GULAM RABBANI, THE UNDER SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 9 19.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. A large number of writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 12.2.2007 by which the matters were referred to a three members committee for re-examination for the purpose of their regularization in terms of the ratio laid down in paragraph 45 and 53 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka and others Vs. Uma Devi & others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. The petitioners alleged that the orders were not complied with and their cases were not considered. A show cause has been filed in the case along with which separate orders in 3 respect of 16 petitioners have been annexed as Annexure-C series, from which it appears that after consideration, the cases of the petitioners for their regularization has been rejected. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has challenged the correctness of the said orders and has alleged that the cases of the petitioner were not considered by the three members committee as directed by this Court and in fact only one member of the committee considered the cases as the other two members were not present. The orders are specific and it has been found that the petitioners had not produced the appointment letters. The said orders were subsequently placed before the two members of the committee, who agreed with the same. In that view of the matter, sitting in contempt jurisdiction, this court is not inclined to go into the matter any further as it finds that the orders of this Court have been complied with in substance by the opposite parties. 4 In the circumstances, this contempt application is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)