IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1954 of 2006 LAKSHMI RAM SINGH & OTHERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhola Bhai Desai For the Respondents: Mr. Alok Kumar, J.C. to G.A. 1 ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 9th July, 2008. The petitioners filed the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 8553 of 2004) for a direction to the respondents to grant them Intermediate and Graduate trained pay scales as well as that of Headmaster. The prayer was not granted. However, the petitioners were directed to make representation to respondent no. 3 who was directed to dispose of such representation by a reasoned order. The relevant part of the order dated 24.8.2005 reads thus: “In the circumstances, learned counsel for the State has no objection if the writ petition is disposed of in like terms as CWJC No. 7823 of 2003 with a liberty to the petitioners to file representation before the respondent no. 3 who shall dispose of the representation filed by the petitioners by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. If the claim of the petitioners be found justified it is expected that necessary orders and directions for payment of Intermediate and Graduate trained pay scales would be given to them forthwith.” 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they made representation to respondent no. 3 but since that was not considered, - 2 - they also gave legal notice through Advocate on 11.2.2006. It is further submitted that the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali by his communication dated 8.3.2006 sought certain clarification and various documents from the petitioners which were provided but still Intermediate and Graduate trained pay scale was not given to them nor that of Headmaster. 3. On behalf of respondent no. 3, cause has been shown and it is stated therein that the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of on 13.9.2006. A copy of the office order dated 13.9.2006 has been placed on record. 4. Having considered the order dated 13.9.2006, it cannot be said that there has been deliberate disobedience by the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali. If the order dated 13.9.2006 suffers from any illegality it has to be challenged in an appropriate proceeding but the same cannot be a subject matter in a contempt jurisdiction. We are, thus, satisfied that nothing further needs to be done in this M.J.C. It is disposed of accordingly. 5. However, it is clarified that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the office order dated 13.9.2006, they may challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/- - 3 -