IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.43 of 2005 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.ANIL KUMAR,COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY,PRIMARY & ADULT EDUCATION DEPTT. GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,NEW SECRETARIATE,PATNA -----APPELLANTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES Versus 1.DR.SMT.RITAMBHARI DEVI W/O LATE KAMAL KRISHNA PRASAD R/O ROAD NO.1/D, REJENDRA NAGAR,P.S.KADAM KUAN DISTRICT & TOWN PATNA ---RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IST SET 2.SRI D.MAHTO TARUN, THE THEN DIRECTOR(ADMN.)-CUM-JOINT SECRETARY, SECONDARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPATT., GOVT.OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE,PATNA 3.SHRI ARUN KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF BIHAR,PATNA 4.SRI U.N.PANJIAR, FINANCE COMMISSIONER,GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT PATNA ---- RESPONDENTS/O.Ps.2ND SET FOR THE APPELLANTS : MR.J.P.SHUKLA,SR.ADVOCATE ----------- WITH MA No.417 of 2004 UMESH NARAYAN PANJIAR SON OF LATE BADRI NARAYAN PANJIAR RESIDENT OF A-3/2,BAILEY ROAD,P.S.SHASTRINAGAR, TOWN & DISTARICT PATNA PRESENTLY POSTED AS FINANCE COMMISSIONER,GOVT.OF BIHAR,OLD SECRETARIATE,PATNA -----APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO.5 Versus 1.DR.(SMT.)RITAMBHARI DEVI WIFE OF LATE KAMAL KRISHNA PRASAD RESIDENT OF ROAD NO.1/D,RAJENDRA NAGAR,P.S.KADAM KUAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA ---- PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IST SET 2.THE STATE OF BIHAR 3.SHRI ANIL KUMAR, THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPATTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4.SHRI D.MAHTO TYARUN THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)-CUM-JOINT SECRETARY, SECONDARY, PRIMARY & ADULT EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT,PATNA 5.THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA ---OPP.PARTY NOS.1 TO 4/PROFORMA RESPONDENTS IIND SET. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR.PUSHKAR NARAIN SHAHI ----------- 13/ 05.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. Inspite of service of notice, no body has appeared on behalf of respondent-writ petitioner. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 8.9.2004 passed 2 in a contempt proceeding bearing M.J.C.No. 621 of 2001 whereby the appellant of M.A.No. 417 of 2004, who was then posted as Finance Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, and appellant no.2 in the other appeal (M.A.43 of 2005) who was then posted as Commissioner-cum- secretary, in the Department of Primary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, were held guilty of contempt and were awarded one day’s simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court. From the discussions made in the order under appeal and the averments, it is clear that the writ petition filed by the respondent-Dr.Smt.Ritambhari Devi bearing C.W.J.C.No. 8243 of 2000 was admitted for hearing on 31.8.2000 and on the same day, an interim order was passed whereby the State Government was directed to pay the pensionary benefits to the writ petitioner for the service period from 25.5.1976 to December, 1996, the date until which the writ petitioner had served under the Bihar Government, within a period of three months. The writ petition appears to be still pending 3 at the stage of hearing. The writ petitioner filed a contempt case bearing M.J.C.No. 621 of 2001 wherein she had alleged the violation of the interim order dated 31.8.2000. From the order under appeal it transpires that the contemners released the post retirement benefits to the petitioner first in the revised scale of Class II Education Service and subsequently, on the basis of scale of pay admissible to the Principal, Government Womens’ College, in the Bihar Education Service of Class I. The only grievance of the writ petitioner which remains was that she had officiated as Director, Research and Training for the period 29.12.1995 to December,1996 and therefore the contemners should grant her scale for the post of Director for that period and pay her the retiral dues on the basis of pay scale admissible for the post of Director. This was not acceptable to the contemners inasmuch as the writ petitioner, according to contemners, had not been granted the regular promotion to the post of 4 Director. The contemners were confronted with certain subsequent orders passed in course of contempt proceeding and on that basis they were held liable to pay to the petitioner the retirement benefits by granting higher pay scale of Director for the particular period. For such disobedience, in the said contempt proceeding, they have been punished and awarded one day’s simple imprisonment till rising of the court. On behalf of the appellants, reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir .Vrs.Sayeed Zaffar Mehdi reported in (1997) 9 S.C.C. page 640 and in the case of State of Bihar & Ors.Vrs. Rajendra Singh and another reported in 2004 (4)PLJR (SC) 162. In both the aforesaid judgments, the Supreme Court held that the contempt is a quasi-criminal matter and therefore, the High Court could not, in the contempt application, enlarge the scope of original writ petition to grant reliefs not granted by the order whose violation is alleged. 5 We are constrained to hold that there was no interim order passed in the writ petition that the writ petitioner would be entitled to the salary of Director for any part of her service career. Such order was subsequently passed only in contempt proceeding. That order was also bound to be subject to the final result of the writ petition because contempt is only a quasi- criminal matter and findings therein cannot be treated to be final when the writ petition is pending. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, we have no option but to set aside the order of conviction and punishment passed against both the contemners. Both the appeals are allowed accordingly. (Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ.) Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)