(2026:JHHC:20713-DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 585 of 2026 1. Jhubli Devi, wife of Late Gandra Oraon, aged about 69 years, resident of Tilma, P.O.-Tilmi, P.S.-Karra, District-Khunti, Jharkhand 2. Mahendra Kumar Singh, aged about 63 years, son of Bachu Singh, resident of Village-Sondiha, P.O.-Kocheya, P.S.-Bishunpura, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand 3. Urmila Devi, wife of Late Shyam Nandan Singh, aged about 63 years, resident of ward no.11, Sahejana, P.O.-Tower Gali, P.S.- Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand, presently residing at Bharkuriya Kala, P.O. & P.S.-Suryapura, District-Rohtas, Bihar 4. Luis Kujur, aged about 65 years, son of Late Andrius Kujur, resident of Tola Korhati, Village-Bargarh, Sondiha, P.O. Bargarh, P.S. Bhandaria, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand 5. Sukar Prasad Singh, aged about 66 years, son of Pachratan Singh, resident of Village-Barkol Kala, P.O.-Paraswar, P.S.-Bhandaria, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand 6. Jugal Ram @ Yugal Ram, aged about 65 years, son of Jatan Ram, resident of Village-Ugra, P.O.-Bargarh, P.S. Bhandaria, District Garhwa, Jharkhand 7. Rajendra Prasad Singh, aged about 67 years, son of Butan Singh, resident of Ward no.7, Chiniya Road, Pipra Kala, P.O.-Garhwa, P.S.- Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand 8. Kuldeep Ram, aged about 67 years, son of Shivpujan Kahar, resident of Village-Mahuliya, P.O.- Soh, P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand 9. Bhuwaneshwar Vishwkarma @ Bhwaneshwar Vishwkarma, aged about 63 years, son of Tapsi Mistri, resident of Babhandih, P.O.- Babhandih, P.S.-Barwadih, District-Latehar, Jharkhand 10. Nagendra Singh, aged about 67 years, son of Ramadhar Singh, resident of Village-Sondiha, P.O.-Kocheya, P.S.-Nagar Untari, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand 11. Mahendra Nath Singh, aged about 65 years, son of Shambhu Nath Singh, resident of Ward no.1, Village-Bodra, P.O.-Harigawan, P.S.- Manjhiaon, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand 12. Moti Chand Thakur, aged about 65 years, son of Saryu Thakur, resident of Village Ramna, P.O.-Ramna, P.S.-Ramna, District Garhwa, Jharkhand 13. Hari Shankar Awasthi, aged about 68 years, son of Uma Shankar Awasthi, resident of Talbanna, P.O.-Sahebganj, P.S.-Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj, Jharkhand 14. Anil Kumar Singh, aged about 63 years, son of Late Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Akhtiyarpur, P.O. Bhanworhan, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali, Bihar … … Petitioners _________ Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mr. Prashant Kumar, son of not known to the petitioners, the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its (2026:JHHC:20713-DB) office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Mr Arun Rai, son of not known to the petitioners, the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Engineering Building, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Mr David Tirkey, son of not known to the petitioners, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. & District- Garhwa, Jharkhand 5. Mr David Tirkey, son of not known to the petitioners, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Hussainabad, P.O. & P.S.- Huassinabad, District- Palamau, Jharkhand 6. Mr Naveen Mahali (Mali), son of not known to the petitioners, the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. & District- Garhwa, Jharkhand 7. Mr Naveen Mahali (Mali), son of not known to the petitioners, the Executive Engineer, Anusandhan Division, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. & District- Garhwa, Jharkhand 8. Mr Keshwar Singh, son of not known to the petitioners, the Executive Engineer, Kadhwan Bandh Division, Nagaruntari, P.O. & P.S.- Nagaruntari, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand 9. Mr Chandrakant Marandi, son of not known to the petitioners, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Sahebganj, P.O., P.S. & District- Sahebganj, Jharkhand 10. Mr Basant Munda, son of not known to the petitioners, the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Khunti, P.O., P.S. & District- Khunti, Jharkhand … ... Respondents / Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioners: Ms Rakhi Rani, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Rohitashya Roy, A.G Mr Ravi Kerketta, S.C-VI --------- 05 /Dated: 13.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this contempt petition, the petitioners allege non-compliance with this Court’s order dated 13.04.2026 in L.P.A. No. 60 of 2026. 3. Being prima facie satisfied that there was no compliance, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondents. (2026:JHHC:20713-DB) 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a reply to the show-cause notice on 09.07.2026, which is duly supported by an affidavit. Today, leave is sought to replace Annexure-E to this reply with a fresh Annexure-E. Such leave is granted, and Annexure-E is now taken on record after being marked as X for identification. 5. The reply as well as the Annexures indicate that each of the petitioners are now being paid pension ranging between Rs. 10,150/- to Rs. 20,600/- per month. In addition, each of the petitioners have been paid arrears of pension, again ranging between Rs. 2,46,072/- and Rs. 19,97,336/-. In terms of the substituted Annexure-E, interest on pension is also paid to the petitioners, which ranges between Rs. 20,000/-and Rs. 45,000/-. 6. Today, it is admitted that interest on the arrears of gratuity remains to be paid, and that it will be paid within a week from today to all the petitioners. This statement is accepted. We direct that interest on arrears of gratuity should be paid within a maximum period of ten days from today. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that still, there is no compliance with this Court’s order dated 13.04.2026 in L.P.A. No. 60 of 2026. She points out that for determining the quantum of pension, the petitioners’ entire service should have been considered and since that has not been taken into account, there is default in compliance. 8. Learned Advocate General states that only after considering the service of the petitioners that the pension amount has been calculated and paid. Learned A.G. also refers to the Government resolution mentioned in (2026:JHHC:20713-DB) paragraph 11 of the reply filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent on 09th of July 2026. Paragraph 11 of the reply does make a reference to Memo No. 660 dated 28.02.2009 and proceeds to state that either interpretation would make no difference in the monthly pension amount payable to the petitioners. However, it was admitted that there could be some differences in the calculation of the gratuity amount. 9. Paragraph 11 further states that, vide Memo No. 3108 dated 09.07.2026, it was decided to pay gratuity to the petitioners by calculating their service from the date of their initial appointment. Learned Advocate General submits that, accordingly, gratuity has been calculated and paid to the petitioners based on their initial date of appointment. However, as noted earlier, Learned A.G admitted that interest on this amount remains to be paid and submitted that it would be paid within a week from today. 10. Considering the submissions made before us and the material placed before us, we do not think that it would be appropriate to proceed any further in these contempt proceedings. Assuming that there are any disputes about the interpretation, etc., such disputes cannot be resolved in the exercise of our contempt jurisdiction. 11. Here, although there was initial delay and perhaps resistance in complying with Court orders, the respondents, in their replies, have tendered their unconditional and unqualified apology. 12. This is also not a case of a mere apology; the apology is backed by substantial compliance with the Court’s orders. From a detailed affidavit filed before us, we can appreciate the difficulties the respondents must have encountered in achieving full and effective (2026:JHHC:20713-DB) compliance with the Court’s orders, though we believe the respondents should have acted with greater dispatch. 13. The contempt petition, ultimately, is a matter between the Court and the contemnor. Upon our satisfaction of substantial compliance, coupled with the reasons for initial delay in compliance, we do not think that it would be appropriate to continue this proceeding any further. 14. Therefore, by only recording and accepting the learned Advocate General’s statement that interest on arrears of gratuity would be paid to each of the petitioners within a maximum period of ten days from today, we discharge the notice issued to the respondents and dispose of this contempt petition. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 13, 2026 N.A.F.R. Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.2 Uploaded on 15.07.2026