2026:JHHC:19498 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 659 of 2023 --------- 1.Arbind Kumar Jha, Aged about 51 years, Son of Late Bateshwar Prasad Jha, 2.Purnima Jha, Aged about 46 years, Wife of Late Arun Kumar Jha, Son of Late Bateshwar Prasad Jha 3.Rajendra Kumar Jha, Aged about 53 years, Son of Late Bateshwar Prasad Jha Resident of Rameshwar Sarraf Road, B.Deoghar, P.O.-Baijnathdham, P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sri Rahul Purwar, The Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. ... ... ... Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC II Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC II ---------- 14/Dated: 3rd July, 2026 I.A. No. 13690 of 2025 1. The instant application has been filed for substitution of legal heirs of petitioner, who died during pendency of the instant contempt case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, namely, Bateshwar Prasad Jha, died during pendency of the instant case on 22.04.2025, in support thereof, the death certificate has been annexed with the Interlocutory Application. 2026:JHHC:19498 Page | 2 3. Therefore, prayer has been made to delete the name of the petitioner and in place thereof, nam of legal heirs of the petitioner, namely, (1).Arbidn Kumar Jha; (2).Purnima Jha and; (3)Rajendra Kumar Jha, be substituted. 4. The substitution application has been filed on 26.09.2025 and till date no rebuttal application has been filed by the Opp. Parties. 5. This Court, considering the averments made in the substitution petition, is of the view that the instant application requires to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed. 7. Office is directed to make necessary deletion and addition in the memo of contempt case in the array of petitioner, as per description made in the instant application. 8. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Contempt Case (Civil) No. 659 of 2023 9. The instant contempt case has been filed for alleged willful and deliberate non-compliance of order dated 08.07.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6415 of 2008. 10. Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties referring to Annexure A and B to the show cause has submitted that the reasoned order has been passed which has been communicated to the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:19498 Page | 3 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has not disputed the aforesaid fact but has sought for liberty to challenge the reasoned order passed by the Opp. Party. 12. There is no opposition to such prayer. 13. Considering the submissions made by the parties, the instant contempt case is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge order dated 12.04.2025 with corrigendum dated 29.04.2025, so passed by the Opp. Parties. 14. With the liberty aforesaid, the instant contempt case stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 3rd July, 2026 Alankar/-