Priyanka Kumari v. The State Of Bihar Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Principal Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1579 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9454 of 2016 ====================================================== Priyanka Kumari Wife of Sri Ram Kishore Baitha, Resident of village Rupni Math, Post Bela Baiju, Police Station- Patahi, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

Dr. Ranjit Kumar Singh, Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3.

Mr. Shirsat Kapil Ashok, District Magistrate, East Champaran. 4.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, District Education Officer, Motihari, East Champaran. 5.

Md. Javed, District Programme Officer, Literacy, Motihari, East Champaran. 6.

Mr. Lalan Kumar Pandey, Block Education Officer, Patahi Block, East Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Smt. Shilpa Singh (Ga 12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 Heard the parties.

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

(i) for initiation of appropriate contempt proceedings against the opposite parties for willful and deliberate disobedience of the direction and order dated 05.08.19 passed in C.W.J.C. no. 9454/2016 whereby the Hon'ble court has disposed writ petition with

Patna High Court MJC No.1579 of 2021(3) dt.11-03-2026 2/2 direction to the respondents to consider the issue of payment of salary to the petitioners, for the period they have worked, within a period of sixty days.

3. A show cause has come on behalf of the opposite party and the learned State counsel has taken this Court to the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Education Department dated 21.09.2017 to show that the claim of the petitioner alongwith others has been negated.

4. Granting liberty to challenge the order, the contempt petition is disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U