IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4103 of 2010 RAM KESHWAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 3. 11.05.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. The direction in the writ petition was to consider grant of pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- at par with degree holders of Homeopathy in view of the government order dated 15.9.1997 to grant the same to diploma holders also. The show cause filed on behalf of opposite parties 3 and 4 today enclosing his pay fixation statement in no uncertain terms state at para 3 as follows:- “3. That it is with due regard submitted that the petitioner has been granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200 to 4000 been 1.1.1996 as per the order of this Hon’ble Court order as such the order of this Hon’ble Court has been complied with by the opposite party.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present show cause or the earlier show cause does not bring on record any formal order granting that pay scale to the petitioner and therefore he apprehends difficulties in future as a pay fixation statement may not tantamount to actual grant of the scale. The apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. Undoubtedly the opposite parties should have brought on record a formal order displaying application of mind by them to the direction of the Court granting the pay scale to the petitioner at par in light of the government instruction dated 15.9.1997. But once the opposite parties have made a specific statement in no uncertain terms in their show cause on oath before this Court in a contempt proceeding, the Court is satisfied that the absence of a formal order shall not prejudice the petitioner in any manner. The issuance of an order now remains a mere formality which it is expected that the opposite parties shall do. Once the opposite parties have decided to grant him the pay scale from 1.1.1996 fairness and reasonableness on their part required not only issuing a formal order but also making a statement therein that the payment shall be made. Unfortunately the opposite parties seem to be revelling in litigation. The Court directs that the payment to the petitioner is a necessary consequence and remains within the ambit of the jurisdiction of Contempt Court. If the actual payment of the arrears is not made to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1996 within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order before opposite party nos. 2 & 3 serious issues of not only of flouting the orders of the Court but also that of misleading this Court may arise for consideration should the petitioner invite the attention of the Court to the same in a fresh proceeding. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the government instruction dated 15.9.1997 arrears have not been paid from due date in terms of the order dated 15.9.1997.The petitioner may represent for the purpose which is expected to be disposed within the same period indicated above. The contempt application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)