Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.688 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 160 of 2008 ======================================================

1. Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Kumar Mandal son of Late Inchlal Mandal village - Bhanga, Police StationPalka, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. Mr. Ajay Kumar Choudhary, The District Magistrate Araria.

3. Sri Prabhat Kumar, Deputy Development Commissioner, Araria.

4. Sri J.R.K. Rao, Chairman Bihar State Employee Selection Commission. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Renu Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Brajesh Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party. It has been pointed out in the show-cause filed by the State that the petitioner was merely working on an honorarium in the office of the District Rural Development Agency, Araria. The guidelines of the District Rural Development Agency, Araria which as been annexed clearly provides organizational structure of the DRDAs and the sanctioned posts which are available therein. It appears from the Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' that the petitioner had only worked on occasions on an honorarium and not on daily wages as had been averred in the writ application. Even now, it appears that the petitioner is not clear as to whether

Patna High Court MJC No.688 of 2015 (8) dt.16-01-2018 2/2 he had worked on daily basis or on an honorarium. Moreover, the case of the petitioner having been duly considered and in view of the fact that he had never been employed on daily wages and his services has been taken from time to time into service and also having perused the show-cause whereafter closely reverting to the terms of the directions issued in the order, this Court finds that no case under the Contempt of Courts Act is made out against the opposite parties.

The contempt application thus stands dismissed. (Anjana Mishra, J) Saif/- U