Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:22678) p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.456 of 2026 ----- Binod Kumar Singh, son of Late Laxman Singh, resident of Rajendra Nagar, Ulidih, P.O. & P.S. Mango, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mr. Praveen Ujjwal Tirkey, Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Chandil, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District Seraikella- Kharsawan. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shio Narayan Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. SC-I ----- Order No.05 Date: 31.07.2026 1. The present contempt case has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite party no.2 for his wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 17th July, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.924 of 2024. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 17th July, 2026, Mr. Praween Ujwal Tirkey, Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Chandil (opposite party no.2) is physically present before this Court today. 3. A supplementary show cause affidavit has been filed on behalf of the said opposite party on 29th July, 2026. 4. Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, learned Sr. SC-I appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 refers to the revised reasoned order passed by the said opposite party, as contained in letter no.169(Accounts) dated 28th July, 2026 and submits that by the said order, the petitioner’s claim has been reconsidered and it has Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:22678) p. 2 been found that no further amount is payable to him for the work in question. It is, thus, submitted that the aforesaid order of this Court has been complied by the opposite party no.2. 5. As against this, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had completed the work on 15th July, 2015 itself and filed an application seeking post facto extension of time in the month of November, 2015, however, the opposite party no.2 sat tight over the matter and took decision on that aspect as late as in the year 2025. Due to the said callous attitude of the opposite party no.2, the petitioner has been made to suffer over these years. 6. Be that as it may. 7. Since in compliance of the order dated 17th July, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.924 of 2024 the opposite party no.2 has passed the revised reasoned order dated 28th July, 2026, there is no need to further proceed in the matter. The contempt proceeding as against the said opposite party is hereby dropped. 8. The present contempt case is disposed of. 9. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law against the revised reasoned order dated 28th July, 2026 passed by the opposite party no.2. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 31st July, 2026 Sanjay/ Uploaded on 31.07.2026