IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.559 of 2009 5 28.1.2010 Ram Sakal Singh @ Ram Salam Singh Son of Sri Prayag Singh, Resident of village- Dadhua, P.S. Patepur, District Vaishali at present posted as District Superintendent of Education, Nawada, P.S. & Distt- Nawada ..... Opposite party/ appellant VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. Yogendra Bhatt, the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman of the District Establishment Committee, Nawada, District Nawada 3. The District Establishment Committee, Nawada through its Chairman, Yogendra Bhatt ..... Opposite parties/ respondents 4. Indradeo Prasad Chouhan, Son of Amrit Prasad Chouhan, resident of village Sandohra Tola Panchhaka, PO Bhadokhara, District Nawada ..... Petitioner/ respondent ------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. In spite of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent no.4, Indradeo Prasad Chouhan, who was the petitioner of MJC No.378 of 2009 and has raised a grievance against the appellant that he had not complied with the order of the Writ Court dated 18.3.2008 passed in CWJC No.8122 of 2005. From the order of the Writ Court dated 18.3.2008 (Annexure-1), it has been shown that the direction was confined to consider the case for promotion 2 of the petitioner, Indradeo Prasad Chouhan and another in Graduate/ B.A. trained scale without any specific direction for grant of consequential benefits in the event they were granted promotion. From the order under appeal dated 16.9.2009, it has been shown that after accepting unqualified apology tendered by the appellant, the learned single Judge has awarded a cost of Rs.2000/- against him because the consequential benefits by way of payment of entire monetary benefits were granted during the pendency of the contempt petition, which was filed in the year 2009. On considering the entire facts and circumstances, it appears that pendency of the contempt petition helped the cause of respondent no.4 and he was given consequential benefits and payment was made expeditiously although there was no such direction in the order passed by the Writ Court dated 18.3.2008. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant need not be saddled with costs of Rs.2000/-. Hence, only that part of the order by which costs of Rs.2000/- has been awarded against the appellant is set aside. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 3 As a result of the aforesaid order, if a deposit of Rs.2000/- has been made before the Secretary, Patna High Court Legal Services Committee then the same shall be refunded to the appellant on his producing a copy of this order before the concerned Secretary. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (C. M. Prasad, J.) sk