IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3179 of 2007 DR. GIRIJA NANDAN SHARMA, son of Late Ramashray Sharma, Resident of Village-Mombai, P.S. Kanko, District-Jehanabad, presently residing at Shankar path (West of Baldeo Bhawan), PUnai Chak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District-Patna. -----------Petitioner. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri Anil Kumar, presently posted as the Secretary, Depatment of Animul Husbandry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.Sri Binod Jha, presently posted as the Additional Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.Sri Brahmchari Chandrashekhar Prasad, presently posted as the Joint Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.Sri Brahmchari Chandrashekhar Prasad, presently posted as the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6.Sri I.D.S. Dhariwal, Accountant General, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ---------Contemnors-opposite parties. ----------- 12 1/4/2010 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State as also Mr.R.K. Rajgrihar, learned counsel for the Accountant General. Grievance of the petitioner relates to 13 years old order passed on 2.5.1997 in C.W.J.C. No.8645 of 1992. In the operative portion of the said order this Court had only said that “the petitioner may file a fresh representation within two weeks from today along with a copy of this order, and the case of the petitioner for his promotion, though he has retired, shall be considered in accordance with the decision as contained in Annexures- C and D of the counter affidavit. An order to this effect may be passed within three months of filing of the representation by the petitioner”. 2 The opposite parties had brought on record a proceeding of departmental promotion committee by way of Annexure-A to the show cause to show that in compliance of the said order the grievance of the petitioner was considered and he was recommended for grant of provisional promotion. The stand taken thereafter by the opposite parties and not controverted in any manner is that the petitioner was also given the benefit of such provisional promotion. Counsel, however, submits that the petitioner is still entitled for a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- on account of promotion which was allowed to be given to him. In the opinion of this Court, there was no quantification made in the said order and therefore strictly speaking there would be no contempt for short payment of any particular amount. Nonetheless, as counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General has submitted that if the petitioner would complete the necessary formalities by producing the required information as solicited from him, authorization for payment of rest of the amount as admissible to him in law, will be issued. Be that as it may, recording the aforementioned submission of counsel for the Accountant General, this Court would hold that nothing survives in this contempt petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)