Vinod Kumar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Bihar, New

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2336 of 2017 In LPA 2270 of 2016 ====================================================== Vinod Kumar Paswan S/o- Late Ramnandan Paswan, resident of VillageBhawanipur, P.O. Dighari, P.S. Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai, At Present Posted as Headmaster, Upgraded Middle School Wakarchak, Suryagarha District- Lakhisarai.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, District Patna, Mr. R. K. Mahajan.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, District Patna, namely Mr M.

Ramachandrudu.

3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, District Munger, namely Smt. Usha Kumari.

4. The District Education Officer, District Lakhisarai, namely Mr. Triloki Singh.

5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), District Lakhisarai, namely Vijay Kumar Mishra.

6. The Block Education Officer, Block Suryagarha, District Lakhisarai, namely Rambilash Prasad.

7. Anita Mandal, W/o Surendra Mahto, resident of Bakarchak, P.O. Dighari, P.S. Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai At Present Posted as Head Assistant Teacher, Upgraded Middle School Wakarchak, District Lakhisarai.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 18-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to take any action for contempt after the orders as is

Patna High Court MJC No.2336 of 2017 (2) dt.18-09-2017 passed by the Division bench. In case, the grievance of the petitioner is still subsisting, he may seek modification or review of the same.

Hence the petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to the remedy as may be available under law with regard to nonpayment of salary. The petitioner is also at liberty to file a separate petition with regard to his grievance.

Accordingly, the application for contempt is dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) S.Sb/- U