IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3127 of 2009 1. Keshri Nandan Dwivedi S/O Late Ram Padarath Dwivedi Vill.- Chandiha, P.S. Purnahiya, Distt.- Sheohar 2. Girish Kumar Singh S/O Late Bhagwan Singh Vill.- Karathia, P.S. Gauri Bazar, Distt.- Deoria (Uttar Pradesh) 3. Nawal Kishore Chaudhary S/O Late Gagandeo Chaudhary Vill.- Kalwai (Chandrabhan), P.S. Kanti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 4. Bishwanath Prasad S/O Late Chandrika Prasad Vill.- Bishunpur Sri Ram, P.S. Sakara, Distt.- Muzaffarpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri Hemchand Sirohi S/O Not Known To The Petitioners Presently Posted As Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Sri Madan Prasad S/O Not Known To The Petitioners Presently Posted As Chief Engineer, Mechanical Public Health Engineering Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha S/O Not Known To The Petitioners Presently Posted As The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Public Health Engineering Circle, Muzaffarpur 5. Sri Ganesh Prasad Yadav S/O Not Known To The Petitioners Presently Posted As The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Civil Division, Muzaffarpur ----------- 3. 16.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite parties. The substantive direction and command in the writ petition was that the petitioners were covered by the erstwhile G.P.F. scheme and could not be compelled to be covered by the subsequent Contributory Pension Fund Scheme. Directions were given continue their earlier G.P.F. accounts and credit the necessary amount in the same. The Court did not give any positive directions or command with regard to any claim for salary. Liberty was granted to file representation for 2 that purpose which the respondents were to consider and dispose off expeditiously in accordance with law. If the representation of the petitioners has not been considered there can be no two opinions that it tantamount to disobedience. Counsel for the petitioners very fairly acknowledges that the respondents have disposed the representation. He however submits that the respondents have wrongly denied the claim for arrears of salary. The submission is that the Court may examine the fresh order passed on 24.10.2011 which substantively deprives the petitioners of the benefits of the order of the writ Court. It is further submitted that to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of a fresh writ application for challenging the order dated 24.10.2011 shall only be multiplying litigation which this Court may like to avoid. Multiplicity of litigation is an aspect which should undoubtedly be avoided. But the desire of the Court to avoid the same has to be tempered by the limits of its jurisdiction. In a contempt proceeding, all that can be examined is if there has been a violation of the direction or command of the Court. The direction/command was to consider the representation for an arrears of salary. That having 3 been done the order of the Court stands complied. If he petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2011, the correctness of the same can be examined only in a freshly constituted writ application if they are so advised. The proceeding stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)