IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.219 of 2000 Chandrika Ram & Ors. ---Petitioner Versus Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. ---Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 12. 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate no.3 for the State. I.A. No.4723 of 2011 has been filed for adding the name of Faguni Chaudhary as petitioner no.12. It is submitted that due to inadvertence, name of Faguni Chaudhary, who was one of the writ petitioners as well as one of the respondents in the connected letters patent appeal as also S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was left out to be included in the category of the petitioners. Copy of the said interlocutory application has been served on the learned counsel for the State. Having considered the submissions of the parties, let name of the applicant of Interlocutory Application No.4723 of 2011, namely, Faguni Chaudhary, son of Sri Sadhu Chaudhary, resident of Tunkariya, P.S-Bariya, District-West Champaran be added as petitioner no.12. With regard to the merits of the contempt application, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their respective pleadings, it appears that this Court vide order dated 1.9.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1630 of 1998 directed the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioners that in case the other daily wage workers much junior to the petitioners are getting - 2 - the minimum scale of pay, then they should also be granted the similar relief. Learned counsel for the State submits that no daily wage workers had been given the minimum pay scale and as such, the petitioners could not have been allowed the minimum scale of pay. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order of this Court has not been disobeyed, as alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to show anything that any of the daily wage workers junior to the petitioners is getting the minimum scale of pay. In view of the above, I do not find that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)