IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2147 of 2009 1.DILIP KUMAR son of Mahendra Paswan, resident of village Maksudpur, P.S. Fatuha, District patna. 2.Ranjeet Kumar son of Late Ram Prakash Singh, resident of village Mirjapur Nout, P.S. Fatuha, District Patna. 3.Nageshwar prasasd son of late Ramadhin Prasad, resident of village Kismiria, P.S. Fatuha, District Patna. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri R.J.M. Pillai son of not known to the petitioners Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.Bhanu Pratap Sharma, son of not known to the petitioner Health commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Health, medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.Dr. Shatrughan Prasad Singh son of not known to the petitioners Director in Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.Jitendra Kumar Sinha, son of not known to the petitioners District Magistrate, patna. 6.Dr. Balmukund Pd. Singh son of not known to the petitioners District Maleria Officer, Patna. 7.Dr. Pranav Kumar son of not known to the petitioners Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Patna. ----------- 2 24-02-2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. Earlier this Court by order dated 6.5.2008 in C.W.J.C. No.7350 of 2008 had passed the order, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners for redressal of their such grievance should approach their Head of the Department i.e, the Director-in-Chief, Health Service, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. Accordingly, the petitioners are given liberty to approach individually to the Director-in-Chief, Health Department who shall after considering and verifying the claim of the petitioners, take appropriate decision in individual case and if the grievance of the petitioners is legitimate he will also take a necessary decision for preparing consolidated list on the basis of working days.” 2 Counsel for the petitioners submits that no order in this regard has been passed by the opposite parties, though the petitioners have already filed their individual representation. Counsel for the State, as usual, would seek two weeks time to take instruction in the matter and file show cause although copy of this contempt petition has been served on 17.1.2009. Counsel’s explanation is that he has sent letter to the authority but they have not cared the same by either complying the order of this Court or to give any instruction. Such situation cannot be allowed to be continued and therefore this Court would call upon the opposite parties including their successors to see that the earlier order of this Court dated 6.5.2008 is complied in letter and spirit within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if order is now not complied, not only the contemnors but their successors in office would also be liable of being proceeded for contempt of Court. The application stands disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)