2026:JHHC:275 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. (Cvl.) Case No.262 of 2024 ------ 1. State Transport Employees Association, Bihar/Jharkhand through its Joint General Secretary-Shri Kailash Prasad Roy 2. Birendra Prasad Mishra 3. Suresh Mahto 4. Durga Gope 5. Kailash Prasad Roy 6. Bhola Singh 7. Shaligram Kumar Rakesh …. …. Petitioners/ Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand; 2. Shri Prashant Kumar, father’s name not known to petitioner, Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi; 3. Shri Prawin Toppo, father’s name not known to petitioner, Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi; 4. Shri Kripa Nath Jha, father’s name not known to petitioner, Transport Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, FFP Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi .... .... Respondents/Opp. Parties CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to G.P.-I ------ 13/Dated: 07.01.2026 1. The instant contempt case has been filed against the opposite party for alleged, willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 29.09.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.3902 of 2015. 2. The Opposite Party no.4 has filed Addl. show cause on being called upon and has stated at paragraph-21 of the show cause notice dated 01.12.2025 that the order has been complied with after making payment of the pensionary benefits on the basis of the decision taken by the Cabinet of absorbing the petitioners in 2026:JHHC:275 2 service. 3. Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has disputed the fact that the pensionary benefit has been paid on the basis of absorption made in Class-IV post, while, the petitioners have already been absorbed in Class-III post. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, has sought for a fresh direction by way of an adjudication, which according to the considered view, is not permissible under the contempt jurisdiction taking into consideration the nature of order passed by this Court, which is the subject matter of the present contempt case. 5. This Court, therefore, is refraining itself in proceeding further with this contempt case and while, disposing of the instant contempt case, the liberty is being reserved to the petitioners to ventilate their grievance before the appropriate forum. 6. Accordingly, the instant contempt case stands disposed of with the liberty aforesaid. 7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 07.01.2026 Rohit/-