2025:JHHC:21388 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 171 of 2025 Lekha Rani Pandey, aged about 59 years, wife of Late Vivekanand Pandey @ Bibekanand Pandey, resident of Anandpuri Colony, Near Raj High School, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District-Pakur. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Shri Jitendra Kumar, DEO presently holding the post of Executive Officer/Administrator, Pakur Nagar Parishad, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District-Pakur. … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, Advocate --- 09/01.08.2025 1. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against opposite parties for their willful and deliberate non- compliance of order dated 20.02.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7619 of 2023. 3. The records of this case reveal that one show cause was filed annexing the reasoned order. However, on 16.04.2025 it was submitted that the reasoned order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and subsequently, the petitioner was heard and a fresh reasoned order has been passed. 4. The learned counsel submits that the same order has been practically repeated. He has submitted that no relief has been granted so far as 7th pay revision is concerned and interest on the admitted amount has also not been paid. She has referred to the prayer made in the writ petition which has been quoted in the order dated 20.02.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 7619 of 2023. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party while opposing the prayer has submitted that the order of this Court has been complied in 2025:JHHC:21388 2 letter and spirit. He has also submitted that the reasoned order has been passed and there was no such direction to give one or the other benefit to the petitioner. 6. He has submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the reasoned order, she can take appropriate steps, but so far as the compliance of the writ order is concerned, that has been done, though belatedly. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the order passed in the writ petition, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in this contempt petition. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to take steps in connection with the reasoned order as may be permissible under law. 8. This contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-