ORDER :

1. The petitioners in the present contempt petition are aggrieved by the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 31.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled as "Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others".

2. Briefly put, the petitioners herein were appointed on class III and class IV non-teaching posts in S.S.J.S. Namdhari College, Garwha, Nilamber Pitamber University. By orders dated 04.12.2015, claims of the petitioners nos. 1 to 24 and 26 to 29 regarding absorption and payment of arrears of salary were allowed by Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha (Retd.) 'One Man Commission' (hereinafter referred to as 'J. Sinha Commission'). The said orders were confirmed by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav (supra), subject to furnishing declaration by the respective petitioners with regard to their continuous working and attending the college regularly since the date of appointment till date, or in case of retirement till the date of retirement and that they did not work anywhere else.

3. The petitioners submit that while they have been absorbed by the university vide notification dated 26.07.2018 with effect from 01.12.2008, they should have been absorbed from the date of their respective appointments and arrears of salary ought to be paid by the contemnors, therefore, the present petition has been filed.

4. The State of Jharkhand in its counter affidavit firstly said that petitioner no. 25 (Janeshwar Dubey) has no locus standi to file this contempt petition as his claim for absorption and arrears was rejected by J. Sinha Commission. Secondly, this contempt is not maintainable in respect of remaining petitioners as well, because they do not satisfy the condition stipulated in para 23 of the order dated 31.08.2017 in Krishna Nand Yadav (supra). It was submitted that while the petitioners in their declaration affidavits claimed to have been working continuously from the date of their initial appointments, but the university vide letter dated 02.02.2018 informed that no record with respect to their continuous working is found by Registrar. The University did not issue continuity certificates. Nonetheless, they were absorbed by the university with effect from the year 2008.

5. The learned counsel for the State submitted that when this was brought to the notice of this Court, direction was issued vide order dated 24.09.2018 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 832 of 2018 and connected matters, vide which the State was directed to decide this issue. In compliance of the said direction, the State conducted a detailed enquiry wherein vide order dated 07.12.2018 it was found that none of the 28 petitioners were either discharging their duties regularly or receiving regular salary. State did not enquire with respect to petitioner no. 25 pleading the rejection of his claim by J. Sinha Commission.

6. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that apart from this, another enquiry was done in compliance of orders dated 11.07.2019 and 07.08.2019 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 1188 of 2018 titled as "Baidya Nath Choudhary Vs. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh and connected matters" wherein on scrutiny of the attendance register and other records, no evidence of continuous working could be found. In some cases, the records were highly doubtful and suspicious due to irregular markings. Hence, it is submitted that no case of willful non-compliance can be made out.

7. We have heard the counsel and perused the documents on record. We will first deal with the issue of maintainability of this contempt petition with respect to petitioner no. 25. Indisputably, the claim of petitioner