Mrinalini Saxena v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.718 of 2015 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 141 of 2013 ======================================================

1. MRINALINI SAXENA, W/o Vijay Kumar, Resident of Saida Bazar, Hilsa, Police Station-Hilsa, District- Nalanda .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The State of Bihar through Shri. Sridhar Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.

3. Sri. B.Kartikey, District Magistrate, Nalanda. null null

4. Sri. Kumar Sahajanand, District Superintendent of Education.

5. Sri. Safique Ahmad, District Program Officer (Establishment), Nalanda.

6. Sri. Ajit Kumar, Sub-Divisonal, Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda.

7. Sri. Prem Raj, Block Development Officer, Karai Parsurai, Distt. Nalanda.

8. Sri. Chandra Shekhar Prasad, Block Education Officer, Karai-Parsurai, P.S. Karai-Parsurai, District- Nalanda. null null

9. Sri. Balchand Paswan Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Sandh, Block KaraiParsurai, P.S. Karai-Parsurai, District Nalanda .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Prasad, Adv. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Sandeep Kumar (Ga8) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 02-02-2018 From the show cause filed by the opposite parties and the material that has come on record, it is seen that after order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3532 of 2012, disposed of on 24.02.2012, contempt proceedings were initiated in M.J.C. No. 141 of 2013 and on 17.09.2014, the contempt application was disposed of in the following manner :

"Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that in compliance to the orders of this Court passed in the writ matter, petitioner has been paid fixed salary of the period upto April, 2013. Learned counsel submits that no salary has been paid for the period thereafter.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that now that the salary of the petitioner has started, she will get her salary of subsequent period also soon as

Patna High Court MJC No.718 of 2015 (4) dt.02-02-2018 2/2 and when the fund is available."

Now complaining disobedience of the order passed in the contempt application, this second contempt application has been filed.

Apart from the fact that there is no direction in the contempt application positive for payment of salary, only assurance was given that salary would be paid subject to the availability of the fund.

Now from the show cause filed by the opposite parties, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to subsequent payment as the degree based on which the petitioner was working is doubtful and the opposite parties have given justification for not paying the salary of subsequent period. In case the petitioner has any grievance, she may raise the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to initiate any contempt.

This contempt application is disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) SA/- U