2025:JHHC:15545 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 856 of 2023 Shailendra Tirkey, aged about 43 Years, Son of late John Benedict Tirkey, Resident of Village-Rampur, P.O.-Chainpur, P.S.-Chainpur, District-Gumla, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri M.C. Mehta, Father's name not known to the petitioner, the Registrar, Ranchi University, Shahid Chowk, P.O.- GPO, PS- Kotwali, Dist- Ranchi 3. Sri Suraj Kumar, Father's name not known to the petitioner, the Director, Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO + PS- Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi. 4. Sri Father Ennocent Kujur, Principal, Paramveer Albert Ekka Memorial College, PO + PS- Chainpur, Dist.- Gumla. … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, AC to G.P.-II For Opp. Party No. 2 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For Opp. Party No. 4 : Mr. Niraj Nayan Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate --- 11/13.06.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the award dated 11.02.2023 passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 574 of 2020 in National Lok Adalat held at High Court of Jharkhand. Said contempt case being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 574 of 2020 was arising out of order dated 06.03.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3597 of 2015. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the entire admissible amount has been paid and certain adjustments have been made with respect to the amount paid to the father of the petitioner while in service, who is no more. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the payment so made was not on account of any salary, rather it was on account of other work which was taken from the father of the petitioner and therefore, such deduction is not in accordance with law. 2025:JHHC:15545 2 5. This Court is of the view that there is a dispute between the parties in connection with the amount remitted to the father of the petitioner/ the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court and such dispute cannot be resolved in contempt proceedings. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in this contempt proceedings. 6. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to take steps, as may be permissible under law, with respect to the remaining claim of the petitioner. 7. This contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. 8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj