2026:JHHC:5423-DB Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 528 of 2025 ----- Baleshwar Prasad Verma, aged about 41 years, son of Sri Manik Mahto, resident of Baghmara, P.O: - Chitardih, P.S: - Jamua Dist.- Giridih, Jharkhand. … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mr. Praveen Kumar Toppo, S/o not known to the petitioner presently posted as the Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O: - Dhurwa, P.S: - Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi. 3. Mrs. Vipra Bhal, D/o not known to the petitioner presently posted as the Transport Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, FFP Bhawan, P.O: - Dhurwa, P.S: - Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi. 4. Mr. Raj Kishore Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioner presently posted as the Under Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand, FFP Bhawan, P.O: - Dhurwa, P.S: - Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi. 5. Mr. Naman Priyesh Lakra, S/o not known to the petitioner presently posted as the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O, P.S and District- Giridih. 6. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Priydarshi, S/o not known to the petitioner presently posted as the District Transport Officer, Giridih, P.O., P.S and District- Giridih. … … … Opp. Parties ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate :Ms. Rashi Sharma, Advocate :Ms. Ruhi Dubey, Advocate For the State :Mr. Ankit Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-VI ------ Order No.10/Dated 24th February, 2026 I.A. No. 2980 of 2026 1. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he is not pressing the instant interlocutory application. 2. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2980 of 2026 is dismissed as not pressed and as such disposed of. 2026:JHHC:5423-DB Page 2 Cont. Case (Civil) No. 528 of 2025 3. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Secretary Transport as well as Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Beshra, Transport Commissioner are present in pursuance to the order dated 12.02.2026. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the concerned opposite parties submitted that the order passed by this Hon’ble Court has been duly complied with, so far as the issues of reinstatement and regularization are concerned. 5. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order has not been fully complied with, since the arrears of salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement have not been paid. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the concerned opposite parties has submitted that there is no direction passed by this Court on the basis of which the present contempt case has been filed with respect to the issue of release of salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the nature of the order passed by this Court, which is evident from paragraph 11 of the order, which is the subject matter of the present contempt case, whereby and whereunder the direction has been passed while quashing the order of termination dated 28.12.2018, with a further direction upon the respondent-authority to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and also to undertake the exercise of regularization of the petitioner, to be complied with within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. The issue of reinstatement as also the regularization has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. So far as the issue of the disbursement of salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement is concerned, the 2026:JHHC:5423-DB Page 3 prayer is being made to proceed with the contempt. Hence, we are not under the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt in the light of the provisions contained under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and as such, issuing any specific direction will not be proper for this Court to proceed on the issue of the disbursement of salary from the date of the order of termination till the date of reinstatement. Otherwise, the same will amount to passing a fresh direction, which is not permissible. 10. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the order has been complied with as per the directions contained therein, hence, it is not a case where further proceeding is required. 11. As such, the instant contempt case being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 528 of 2025 is disposed of, however, with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance regarding the issue of disbursement of salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement by filing an appropriate application before the appropriate forum. 12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 24.02.2026 Umesh/Abhishek