Dharmendra Kumar , v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2782 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20062 of 2013 ====================================================== Dharmendra Kumar, Son of Ramesh Prasad, resident of Village- Salempur, P.O.- Sikanderpur, P.S.- Saukurabad, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Sri R.K.Mahaja, the State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. Sri Rahul Singh, State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Board, Bihar, Patna.

3. Sri Ajay Kumar, District Magistrate cum- President, District Executive Committee, District Education Project, Lakhisarai.

4. Sri Pradeep Kumar, District Programme Officer, Lakhisarai.

5. Sri Pradeep Kumar, District Education Superintendent, cum- District Programme Coordinator, Bihar Educational Project. Sri Ram Brichh Bhuiyan, Block Education Officer, Chanan. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Prativa Kumari, Advocate.

For the O.P/s :

Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, AAG 15.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 13-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Having regard to the nature of order passed by this Court in the connected writ application, this Court on finding that a reasoned order has been passed way back on 23.05.2014 i.e. even before filing of this contempt application, there would be no need to continue with the proceedings of this contempt application inasmuch as this Court had neither fixed any amount to be paid nor had even held the petitioner to be entitled for salary.

3. If the petitioner, therefore, is aggrieved with the impugned order including the ground of non-furnishing the

Patna High Court MJC No.2782 of 2014 (2) dt.13-07-2015 2/2 document mentioned therein, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner had already been handed over to the District Programme Officer (Establishment) on 06.03.2013, it will be always open for him to approach the competent authority/court for redressal of his grievance. In contempt jurisdiction, this Court is not going to examine the correctness of such order passed by the authority.

4. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, this contempt application is disposed of.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U