IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.391 of 2008 ***** Gupteshwar Prasad son of Sri Dinechwar Prasad resident of Kishori Bhawan, Mohalla-Amrudi (Nala Road), P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District-Patna presently employed as an Assistant in the office of the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Indira Bhawan, Ram Charittar Singh Path, Patna-800 001. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, son of the name of the father is not known to the petitioner, Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Vikas Bhawan, Patna-800 001. 2. The Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman, S/o the name of the father is not known to the petitioner, Indira Bhawan, Ram Charittar Singh Path, Patna-800 001. 3. Mr. Vijay Prakash, son of the name of the father is not known to the petitioner, Managing Director, the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Indira Bhawan, Ram Charittar Singh Path, Patna-800 001. 4. Mr. Jaishankar Mishra, S/o the name of the father is not known to the petitioner, Chief Personnel Officer, the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Indira Bhawan, Ram Charittar Singh Path, Patna-800 001. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- 3. 18.11.2009. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the opposite party-BSIDC the Court is of the opinion that no case for contempt is made out. The order was passed on the notion that Justice Uday Sinha Committee was still functional and had funds to disburse but that is not so, the committee has wound up after disbursing every penny. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, informs the Court that the petitioner is getting the current salary on the promoted post, however, due to paucity of funds and readily available resources the past commitments are not being met as of now. The Corporation does not resile from its commitment but petitioner will have to wait for the endeavor and the efforts being made in this regard. No case for contempt is made out but the Corporation has - 2 - an obligation to the petitioner, who is still an employee working under them. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)