IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.130 of 2011 Hari Harendra Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ----------- 3. 27.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Opposite parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that in pursuance of the retrospective appointment on the post of Assistant he has been paid his arrears of salary but, gratuity, leave encashment and revision of pension from his earlier post as Karmchari has not been effected. Counsel for the State submits that necessary requisition has been sent to the office of Accountant General for payment of the difference of the leave encashment, gratuity and revision of pension after deducting the payments in his status as Karmchari. Considering that the statement comes from the opposite parties in a contempt proceeding on oath, assuring the Court that they have taken steps for compliance of the order of the Court, rather than to keep the contempt proceeding pending, as suggested by the petitioner, the Court accepts the same as a solemn assurance and undertaking to the Court for full compliance of the order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before them. Should the opposite party belie the faith and trust that the Court has placed in the assurance and undertaking furnished serious consequences may ensue if the petitioner brings the same to the attention of the Court. A proceeding in contempt is primarily an issue between the Court and the contemnor. Other issues with regard to denial of promotion on the post of Assistant are matters which can more appropriately be examined in a fresh proceeding. The contempt proceeding stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)