2026:JHHC:25062 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 193 of 2025 --------- Santosh Kumar, aged about 48 years, S/o-Late Sugrib Sharma, R/o-Sanko Sai, Road no. 1, P.O. & P.S.-Mango, Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Mukesh Kumar, father’s name not known to the petitioner, The Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Ranchi, Office at: Nepal house, P.O & P.S.-Doranda, COPA, Doranda, Dist-Ranchi. ... ... Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Adv For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA III ---------- 05/Dated: 19th August, 2026 1. The instant contempt case has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, for alleged willful non-compliance of order dated 20.02.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4801 of 2012. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is quoted as under: “6.Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that admittedly, in case of contractual appointment no right has accrued to an employee to continue on the said post when the contract has come to an end. However, in the instant case ground for interference has been left open as 2026:JHHC:25062 Page | 2 petitioner has been discriminated as well as cardinal principle of natural justice has not been adhered to. 7. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.05.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are required to reconsider the matter and hence, the matter is remitted back to the concerned authorities for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law and in view of specific averments made in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to present his case. 2. Show cause has been filed on behalf of concerned Opp. Party stating inter alia that on the issue of consideration, fresh order has been passed on 22.07.2025 by rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of non- compliance of circular bearing Circular No. 4569 dated 05.07.2002. 3. The case was heard on 22.07.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to order dated 22.07.2025 had submitted that the said order cannot be accepted to be compliance of the order passed by this Court on the ground that since the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribag is having no administrative power even then he has passed the order. 5. Upon the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the concerned Opp. Party has sought for and granted two 2026:JHHC:25062 Page | 3 weeks’ time to file compliance affidavit in its letter and spirit. 6. Pursuant thereto, supplementary show cause has been filed stating inter alia therein that since the appointment was to be made in the Labour Court and as such the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribag was having jurisdiction to appoint the Class IV employee on contract basis. It has been submitted by referring to the order of appointment dated 09.12.2010 that the appointment of the petitioner was made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribag. 7. Mr. D.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order which has been passed on 22.07.2025 said to be in compliance of order passed by the case, cannot be said to be compliance in true letter and spirit since whatever order has been passed that is not on the basis of supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner before the writ court, wherein ground has been taken that one identically placed person is being allowed to continue on contract basis in Labour Court, Deoghar and he is still working. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. This Court has considered the order passed by the learned writ Court, in particular paragraph 7, as quoted and referred hereinabove. 2026:JHHC:25062 Page | 4 10. In compliance to the order passed by the writ Court, order has been passed on 22.07.2025 but submission has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order cannot be said to be passed in compliance of the order passed by the writ Court since the averment/ground which has been taken in the supplementary affidavit filed before the writ Court to the effect that identically placed person is being allowed to continue on contract basis in Labour Court, Deoghar and he is still working but that fact has not been taken into consideration while passing order dated 22.07.2025. 11. This Court is of the view that there is no specific direction passed by the writ Court for reinstatement of the petitioner in service rather the direction has been passed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of averment made in the supplementary affidavit. Pursuant thereto order has been passed but the petitioner is aggrieved therewith. But the fact remains that this Court in exercise of power conferred under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is having no power to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities. 2026:JHHC:25062 Page | 5 12. Considering the same, this court is of the view that the contempt case is not fit to be allowed to proceed further. 13. Accordingly, while disposing of the contempt case liberty is being granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 22.07.2025 by filing appropriate application before the appropriate forum. 14. With the liberty aforesaid, the instant contempt case stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 19th August, 2026 Alankar/-