Md. Zafar Ali, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.532 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17986 of 2019 ====================================================== Md. Zafar Ali, Son of Md. Hasrat Ali, Resident of Mohalla - Bali Kakshin, Bhalwa Tola, ward No. 17, Balhi, Police Station- Jainagar, DistrictMadhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

Mr. The Director, School Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

Mr. Sirsak Kapil Ashok, The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 4.

Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, The District Programme Officer (Education), Madhubani.

5.

Mr. Md. Nasim Ahmed, The District Education Officer, Madhubani. 6.

Mr. Purnima Rajiv, The Block Education Officer, Jainagar, Madhubani. 7.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Paswan, The Head Master, Utkramit Middle School, Khairamat (Ka), Jainagar, Madhubani.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mazharul Hassan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Smt. Shilpa Singh (GA-12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 06-05-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):

"for initiation of proceeding against the contemnor/Opposite Parties for violating the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay (as his lordship then was) dated 04.09.2019 and 17.09.2019 in C.W.J.C. No. 17986 of 2019 with referring the certain orders of this Court as contained in Annexre-1 direction to the District

Patna High Court MJC No.532 of 2020(3) dt.06-05-2025 2/2 Education Officer/District Programme Officer, Madhubani Respondent No. 4 and 5 to wrongly the records to ascertain whether the petitioner has worked as to line marking worked for the Road he is claiming remuneration the Respondent should ensure payment of salary for the period of petitioner has actually worked necessary decision must be taken by the Respondent at the earliest preferably within period of 60 days from a maximum the date of representation of copy of the order. Petitioner filed representation with the order of this Hon'ble Court on 01.10.2019 but up till now no any steps taken by the Respondent."

3. A show cause of the opposite party no. 4 is on record, according to which, the District Education Officer, Madhubani has negated the claim of the petitioner.

4. The order stands complied.

5. Granting liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter, if he so wants, the contempt petition stands disposed of. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U