H.C.MISHRA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board (herein after referred to as the 'Board').
(2.) This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 22.6.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2014, whereby this Court had quashed the impugned order dated 15.7.2011, passed by the Managing Director of the Board, prescribing the date of regularisation of the service of the petitioner as 26.4.2011. This court had found that the Managing Director had acted beyond his jurisdiction in prescribing the date for regularising the services of the petitioner, without there being any minutes of the Board of Directors to that effect. While quashing the said order, this Court had allowed the writ application in the following terms:- "11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, which prescribes the date for regularisation of the services of the petitioner, is hereby, quashed. It is however, made clear that respondent authorities shall be free to take appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to the date of regularisation of service of the petitioner by a reasoned order, taking into account his past continuous service. If no such decision is taken within a reasonable period of maximum six months from the date of communication of the order, it shall be deemed that the service of the petitioner has been regularised with effect from the date of continuous and uninterrupted service of the petitioner, i.e., from 20.8.1990 (Annexure-3), with all consequential benefits." (Emphasis supplied).
(3.) In this contempt petition, the petitioner has also brought on record, the order passed by the respondents, as contained in Memo No. 2/Go. dated 21.12.2016, which is purported to have been passed in compliance of the order dated 22.6.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2014. It is stated in the said order that Board of Directors, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, had decided to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from 26.4.2011. This is the same date, which was mentioned in the earlier order, which was quashed by this Court.;