2026:JHHC:10324 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 733 of 2025 Raj Kishore Mahto, S/o Late Niranjan Mahto, R/o Village-Sumandih, PO-Budhadih, PS-Bundu, District-Ranchi ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Shri Badal Raj, District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi ... … Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, AC to SC-V ----- 04/10.04.2026 The present contempt petition has been filed for initiating a contempt proceeding against the contemnors/opposite parties alleging wilful violation of the order dated 14.05.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4146 of 2019. 2. Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, AC to SC-V appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, refers to the order as contained in memo no. 360/vidhi dated 17.07.2025 passed by the opposite party no. 2 (Annexure-A to the show cause affidavit dated 05.08.2025) and submits that vide said order, the date of appointment of the petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits has been counted from 16.04.1982. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid order of this Court has been complied. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite passing of the order dated 17.07.2025 by the opposite party no. 2, the revised pensionary benefits have not been extended to the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:10324 2 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the opposite party no. 2 has already passed the reasoned order treating the petitioner’s date of appointment with effect from 16.04.1982 for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits, I see no reason to further proceed in the contempt petition. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is hereby dropped. 5. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. It is, however, observed that if the petitioner is not extended the revised pensionary benefits in terms with the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the opposite party no. 2 within six weeks, he shall be at liberty to prefer a fresh contempt application. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) April 10, 2026 Manish Uploaded on 10.04.2026