Harish Kumar, J. – Considering the identical grievance and the nature of the dispute, both the writ petitions have been heard together and with the consent of the respective parties are being disposed of by this common order/judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Anis Akhtar, learned counsel along with Md. Rashid Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases, Md. Sajid Salim Khan, learned counsel along with Ms. Shobia Mustaq, learned counsel for the Bihar Urdu Academy and Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel along with Mr. Umesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the State.

3. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 6619 of 2023 is a retired employee of the Bihar Urdu Academy, Patna has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction commanding upon the respondent Secretary, Bihar Urdu Academy, Patna (respondent no.8) to make payment of Rs.5,88,665/-, deducted from his gratuity, whereas the petitioners in CWJC No. 9991 of 2023 are the working employees of Bihar Urdu Academy, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Academy’) and they have preferred the writ petition seeking quashing of orders as contained in letters no. 58/23, 57/23 and 59/23 dated 23.06.2023 passed by respondent no.8 whereby a direction has been issued for deduction of the amount of Rs.5,88,665/-, Rs. 8,34,478/- and Rs.5,78,621/- respectively from their salary, which amount was paid to all the petitioners after the proceedings of M.J.C. No. 5056 of 2012, brought for non-compliance of the order dated 16.08.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16537 of 2004 after five years of getting the contempt proceedings dropped and further to arraign the respondent Secretary for his deliberate and gross willful contemptuous conduct of disobedience and misconstruction/misinterpretation of the orders dated 16.08.2011 and 08.11.2017.

4. The short facts, which led to the filing of the present writ petitions is that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages between 1981-1983 and in 1994, and further they were subsequently appointed in their respective pay scales admissible against their posts. However, during the service period, the petitioners along with two other employees of the Academy were terminated from service by the order dated 25.11.2004. The petitioners along with two others assailed their termination order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 16537 of 2004, which was after hearing allowed by the order dated 16.08.2011 and their termination orders were set aside with the following directions: –

“Accordingly, the orders as contained in Annexure 8 series, terminating the services of the petitioners, are quashed and the petitioners are directed to be reinstated in service. However, since there is nothing on record that during the period of termination, the petitioners were not gainfully employed elsewhere, the respondents are directed to pay only 50% of their emoluments for the period the petitioners remained under termination. Needless to say, the petitioners will be entitled to the arrears of salary till the date of their termination in accordance with law, as recommended by the enquiry committee and admitted by the Secretary of the Academy, while issuing the notification of termination.

The whole exercise of reinstatement and payment should be done within a period of four months of the production/receipt of a copy of this order.”

5. Consequent thereto, the petitioners have filed applications for their reinstatement and payment of their arrears of salary, but on one pretext or the other, no such order was passed compelling the petitioners to file M.J.C. No. 5056 of 2012 for initiation of a contempt proceeding against them for non-compliance of the order dated 16.08.2011.

6. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 6619 of 2023 was allowed his joining on 01.02.2016, whereas the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 9991 of 2023 were allowed their joining on 04.02.2016, but for non-compliance of the other directions contained in the order, notices were issued to the opposite parties (respondents herein) to sho