Shikandar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.169 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2188 of 2016 ====================================================== Neelam Devi Wife of Sikandar Sharma @ Sikendra Sharma Resident of Village - Mafo (Mapho), Police Station - Mehus, District- Sheikhpura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj Government of Bihar, namely Shree Amrit Lal Meena. 2.

The District Magistrate, District Sheikhpura namely Inayat Khan. 3.

The District Development Commissioner, District Sheikhpura, namely Satyendra Kumar Singh.

4.

The District Panchayat Officer, District Sheikhpura, namely Shri Yadunath Singh.

5.

The District Account Officer, District Sheikhpura, namely Shri Nagendra Rai.

6.

The Block Development Officer, Block- Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura namely Shri Bharath Kumar Singh.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamlesh Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay (GA 5) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-11-2025 Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Application has been filed for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the concerned opposite parties for non compliance of the order of this Court dated 10.02.2017 passed by a Bench of this Court, whereby the respondent State authorities were directed to grant 1st ACP to the petitioner.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that despite the fact the deceased petitioner was entitled to get Grade

Patna High Court MJC No.169 of 2022 dt.21-11-2025 2/2 Pay of Rs.4200, he was wrongly extended Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34,000. Hence the order of this Court is said to be not complied.

4. Having considered the nature of the order passed by a Bench of this Court and the order under contempt, this Court does not find any reason or occasion to continue with the present contempt proceeding. Accordingly, the same stands disposed.

5. However, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the Grade Pay, as has been extended to him, she shall be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate authority or court. (Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 24.11.2025 Transmission Date