IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 718 of 2022 ----- Lakshman Shaw, S/o Late Ramdhani Shaw, R/o Qr. No.674, Sector- 3C, P.O. Bokaro Steel City, P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sri Tadi Lakshmi Narayan Reddy, Managing Director, M/s Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd, 3rd Floor, NBCC Square, Plot No.111F/2, Action Area-III, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. Rajarhat, P.S. Rajarhat, District Kolkata (West Bengal) 3.Sri Arunabh Mukherjee, AGM (HRM), M/s Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd, 3rd Floor, NBCC Square, Plot No.111F/2, Action Area-III, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. Rajarhat, P.S. Rajarhat, District Kolkata (West Bengal)------ Respondent(s) …… WITH Cont. Case (Civil) No. 708 of 2022 ----- Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. (HSCL), retired Employees Association and its Members, constituted for realization of outstanding legal dues of the retired employees from the Company (HSCL), through the General Secretary, namely, Rabindra Nath Ojha, S/o Late Setnath Ojha, House No.530, Bhojpur Colony, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sri Tadi Lakshmi Narayan Reddy, Managing Director, M/s Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd, 3rd Floor, NBCC Square, Plot No.111F/2, Action Area-III, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. & P.S. Rajarhat, District Kolkata (West Bengal) 3.Sri Arunabh Mukherjee, AGM (HRM), Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd, 3rd Floor, NBCC Square, Plot No.111F/2, Action Area-III, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. Rajarhat, P.S. Rajarhat, District Kolkata (West Bengal)------ Respondent(s) …… WITH Cont. Case (Civil) No. 719 of 2022 ----- Shri Kant Singh, S/o Late Gyani Singh, R/o Qr. No.163, Sector-1B, P.O. Bokaro Steel City, P.S. B.S. City, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sri Tadi Lakshmi Narayan Reddy, Managing Director, M/s Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd, 3rd Floor, NBCC Square, Plot No.111F/2, Action Area-III, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. & P.S. Rajarhat, District Kolkata (West Bengal) 3.Sri Arunabh Mukherjee, AGM (HRM), M/s Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd, 3rd Floor, NBCC Square, Plot No.111F/2, Action Area-III, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. Rajarhat, P.S. Rajarhat, District Kolkata (West Bengal)------ Respondent(s) …… WITH Cont. Case (Civil) No. 721 of 2022 ----- Braj Kishore Sinha, S/o Late Chandra Kant Sinha, R/o Qr. No.1B/309, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sri Tadi Lakshmi Narayan Reddy, Managing Director, M/s Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd, 3rd Floor, NBCC Square, Plot No.111F/2, Action Area-III, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. & P.S. Rajarhat, District Kolkata (West Bengal) 3.Sri Arunabh Mukherjee, AGM (HRM), M/s Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd, 3rd Floor, NBCC Square, Plot No.111F/2, Action Area-III, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. Rajarhat, P.S. Rajarhat, District Kolkata (West Bengal)------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate [In Cont. Case (C) Nos.718, 719 & 721/2022] For the State : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III [In Cont. Case (C) No.721 /2022] Mr. Awanish Shekhar, AC to AAG-I [In Cont. Case (C) No.708 /2022] Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III [In Cont. Case (C) No.719 /2022] For the O.P : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate [In Cont. Case (C) No.708 /2022] For the O.P. No.2&3 : Mr. Kamlesh Chaubey, Advocate [In Cont. Case (C) No.718 /2022] …...... 17 / 31.01.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have prayed to initiate a contempt against the respondents for allegedly violating the order passed in W.P.(S) No.5308 of 2016 and analogous cases. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Hon’ble Court observed that the case of the petitioners stands on better footing and they are entitled for the relief, but the respondents were directed to dispose of the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order. He submits that reasoned order was passed taking the grounds, which were already there in the writ petition and the respondents have rejected the claim. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the opposite party submits that mandamus has not been violated, the mandamus was issued to considered the claim of the petitioners which was considered and a reasoned order was passed. He submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the reasoned, they should challenge the same by filing separate writ petition. 5. I have gone through the order which the petitioners allege to have been violated by the respondents. After going through the order, I find that mandamus was issued to dispose of the claim of the petitioners by passing a reasoned order and if it is found that petitioners are entitled for any monetary benefit, to extend the same. Whatever may by the other observations of the Court, that was not the mandamus. Since the respondents have passed a reasoned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners on whatever grounds, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to challenge, the aforesaid order by filing a writ petition or any other application, but not by approaching this Court by filing a contempt application. 6. Thus, I am of the opinion that no contempt is made out. Accordingly, these contempt applications are dropped with a liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order before any appropriate authority. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.