Jharkhand High Court
Bipin Kumar Bihari vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others ... ... ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No.415 of 2024
With
I.A. No.9187 of 2025
-----
Bipin Kumar Bihari ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Opp. Parties
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate
: Ms. Rashi Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Ruhi Dubey, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV
------
Order No.07/Dated 13 August, 2025
th
1. The instant contempt case has been filed for alleged
willful and deliberate non-compliance of order dated
08.12.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.3351 of 2023.
2. The ground for filing this contempt case is that
although the order was passed on 08.12.2023 with a
direction to release the arrears of difference of salary within
the period of three months from the date of receipt of copy
of the order, but till date it has not been complied with. The
said order was passed in presence of learned counsel
appearing for the State who is representing the opposite
party-State in the instant contempt case.
3. It has been contended that after filing of the instant
contempt case, when the Court has issued notice upon the
opposite party, then after delay of 242 days one Letters
Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.563 of 2024 has been filed.
The said LPA has been dismissed on the ground of
limitation by the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court dated 05.06.2025
4. It has further been submitted that now the State is
taking the plea, as would be evident from the interlocutory
application which has been filed seeking time on the
ground of pending proceeding before the Hon'ble Apex
Court by way of Special Leave Petition.
5. It has been contended by placing the status of the
aforesaid S.L.P. which has been filed on 09.07.2025 but it
is still defective.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the order so passed by the writ court is totally based
upon and squarely covered with the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V.
Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, but even then, only due
to the reason that petitioner has approached to this Court,
as a counterblast the order is not being complied with.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, based
upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the
application filed for extension of time, therefore, is fit to be
rejected.
8. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned S.C.-IV, appearing for
the concerned opposite party, has submitted that the
matter since is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, as
such, 12 weeks' time may be allowed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on
the interlocutory application being I.A. No.9187 of 2025.
10. The factual aspect which has been brought to the
notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner
reflects that the State, after passing of the judgment by this
Court which is the subject matter of the instant case,
immediately has not preferred any Letters Patent Appeal,
rather, the appeal has been preferred on 25.07.2024 which
was reported to be defective.
11. The said Letters Patent Appeal was listed before the
Lawazima Bench on the issue of removal of defect on
31.07.2024 and thereafter it was listed again on
18.10.2024.
12. The case was instituted on 23.10.2024 on removal
of defects but by that time the delay of 242 days has been
caused. However, this Court has passed order on
18.10.2024 by directing the concerned opposite party to file
compliance report of order before the next date of hearing.
13. The matter was posted on 22.11.2024 but order
having not been complied with, therefore, notice was issued
under Rule 393 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules to the
concerned opposite party No.3-the Principal Secretary,
Water Resources Department, Ranchi as to why the
proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be not
initiated against him with a further direction upon him to
appear in person for framing of charge.
14. On the point of limitation, the said Letters Patent
Appeal was heard by the Division Bench of this Court on
05.06.2025 but was rejected on the ground of limitation
since it was filed after delay of 242 days and in
consequence thereof, the Letters Patent Appeal was also
dismissed.
15. Now the present interlocutory application has been
filed again seeking 12 weeks' time on the ground of pending
Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court but
the said Special Leave Petition is still defective, as would be
evident from the copy of the status report downloaded from
the website of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
16. Further, it has been pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the said Special Leave
Petition is still incomplete, as would be evident from the
remarks column of the status report.
17. This Court considered the approach of the
concerned opposite party in flouting the order passed by
this Court on the ground of filing Letters Patent Appeal
after delay of 242 days and now Special Leave Petition that
too defective.
18. Therefore, prayer for grant of 12 weeks' time as has
been sought by filing the instant interlocutory application,
is fit to be rejected.
19. Accordingly I.A. No.9187 of 2025.
20. Although the present issue is for initiation of
proceeding for contempt but what has been submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the
petitioner in whose favour the order has been passed which
is the subject matter of the present contempt case, squarely
covered with the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (Supra)
but even then the State is contesting the case by filing
Letters Patent Appeal and now the Special Leave Petition.
21. It cannot be disputed that the State is having right
to challenge the order, but the question which has been
raised that it is only to harass the petitioner, cannot be
totally ruled out.
22. One more opportunity is being given to the opposite
party No.3-the Principal Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Ranchi, to comply with the order passed by
this Court since notice has already been issued upon the
concerned Secretary vide order dated 22.11.2024 and the
Secretary concerned is in contempt due to non-compliance
of the order within the time as stipulated in the order dated
08.12.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.3351 of 2023, subject
matter of instant contempt case.
23. List this matter on 27.08.2025.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Birendra/
