Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sudhir Singh delivered seven judgments on January 12, 2026 in The State of Bihar vs. Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh, Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, The State of Bihar, through Mr. Amrit Lal Mina, Chief Secretary, vs. Mr. Anil Kumar, Chanda Sinha vs. The State of Bihar, Sudha Trivedy vs. The State of Bihar, Poonam Kumari vs. The State of Bihar, and Sunil Shahi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh vs. The State of Bihar was heard along with LPA filed by the State.
In Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjit Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), in his 11th judgement authored by Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo, the order of Justice Harish Kumar was upheld. He concluded:"...we find no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Merely because the appellant worked for a few years on a contractual basis, that by itself cannot be a ground to give him appointment on a regular basis."
In The State of Bihar, through Mr. Amrit Lal Mina, Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs.Mr. Anil Kumar & Anr. (2026), in his 12th 6-page long judgement, Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo led Division Bench sets aside paragraph 10 of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri's 4-page long interim order dated April 30, 2025. Chief Justice Sahoo concluded:"7. It is not in dispute that there was never any prayer in the writ petition seeking the grant of promotional benefits. Even though in the operative part of the order, the words not only pensionary benefits but also all consequential benefits have been used, but when there was no prayer in the writ petition for any promotional relief or promotional aspect, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge directed the grant of promotional benefits to the opposite party. Therefore, we are of the view that the direction passed in paragraph 10, as stated above, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. It is open to the opposite party to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), the appeal stands disposed of."
Significantly, the MJC in question is still pending before Justice Chaudhuri's bench. His order dated September 12, 2025 reads: "Learned Advocate for the opposite party submits that against the order passed by this Court, an appeal is pending before the Division Bench and till the disposal of the L.P.A., this Court should not proceed with the instant contempt application. 2. In support of his contention, he refers to an order passed by the Division Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice in Letters Patent Appeal 595 of 2024, wherein the Division Bench observed that during pendency of the appeal, the Single Judge should not proceed with the contempt matter. 3. This matter was considered by this Court in M.J.C. No. 3797 of 2024 in C.W.J.C. No. 10549 of 2024 and vide an order, dated 13.12.2024, considering series of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court held that the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal 595 of 2024 has not laid down a ratio, as in the said order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions in Modern Food Industries India Ltd., Dr. H. Phunindre Singh and Maninderjit Singh Bitta were not considered. 4. Be that as it may, if the opposite party fails to bring a stay order from the Division Bench, the instant contempt proceeding shall continue."
The Letters Patent Appeal which was heard by the Division Bench had challenged the order by Justice Chaudhuri. The operative portion of the order passed in M.J.C. reads: "10. In view of Jankiraman (supra), the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is under obligation to open the sealed cover and on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner shall be promoted notionally from the date his juniors were promoted. The petitioner is also entitled to get arrears salary in promotional scale from the date of notional promotion. The opposite parties are specifically directed to comply with the above order within a period of four weeks from the date."
Notably, M.J.C. No. 3368 of 2024 arose out of C.W.J.C. No. 6902 of 2022 against the order dated April 30, 2025. The opposite party, Anil Kumar had approached the High Court praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent for payment of leave encashment and gratuity of the petitioner by way of his retrial dues with interest on and from 31.01.2014, the date of superannuation of the petitioner and for an appropriate direction/order/orders/command/commands as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and also for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may found entitled."
Justice Chaudhary had relied on Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. K. V. Jankiraman & Ors., reported in (1991) 4 SCC109 that consideration of case of an employee for promotion or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of any preliminary inquiry/criminal investigation against him. Sealed cover adopted only after the date of issuance of charge memo/charge sheet, that being the date from which disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be taken to have been initiated. Sealed cover procedure can also be adopted where the employee is placed under suspension.
In his judgement, Chief Justice Sahoo observed:" 3. The scope of contempt proceeding is strictly confined to the four corners of an order or specific prayers made in the underlying writ petition, meaning a Court cannot expand the scope of original order or grant new relief testing allegations of disobedience. Contempt jurisdiction is not a substitute for execution proceeding, It cannot be used to direct compliance with things not explicitly ordered. Contempt can only be established if there is a willful and deliberate violation of the specific directions in the judgment/orders. If specific relief was not asked for in the writ petition, the contempt Court cannot later include it in its enforcement orders. Thus, while exercising contempt power, the Court should not issue supplementary directions. If the original order is vague, the proper remedy is to seek clarification from the Court that passed the original order, rather than to expand its scope through contempt proceedings." He relied on Supreme Court's decision in Jhareswar Prasad Paul & Anr. vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly & Ors., reported in (2002) 5 SCC 352, wherein it is held as follows:-"...11. It is to be kept in mind that the court exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt does not function as an original or appellate court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained..." He also referred to Supreme Court's judgement in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Ors. vs. M. George Ravishekaran & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 373, wherein, it that: "...19. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law...".
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice relied on Supreme Court's decision in V. Senthur & Anr. vs. M. Vijayakumar, IAS, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission & Anr., reported in (2022) 17 SCC 568, wherein, it held as follows:-"15. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that in a contempt jurisdiction, the court will not travel beyond the original judgment and direction; neither would it be permissible for the court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found in the original judgment and order. The court is only concerned with the wilful or deliberate non-compliance of the directions issued in the original judgment and order."
It emerges from the judgement of the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sahoo and Justice Singh that there is no stay on the contempt proceedings and Justice Chaudhuri's previous judgement and orders are intact almost in its entirety.
No comments:
Post a Comment