IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2042 of 2005 BIBI JAWEDA KHATOON Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Alim Jang Khan, Adv. For the Opposite parties : Mr. S.S.Mishra, JC to G.A.5 ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 9th July, 2008. The grievance of the petitioner in this contempt application is that the order dated 16.7.2004, has not been fully complied with. 2. The order dated 16.7.2004 reads, thus: - “However, having regard to the order dated 19.9.2003, disposing of several writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7054 of 2003 and analogous cases by common order, this Court considers it expedient to dispose of these writ petitions also in terms of the directions given in the said order with only modification that two paragraphs affidavit personally sworn by the concerned authority must be filed by 20th August, 2004. Parties will be bound by the said direction and they should proceed in the matter accordingly.” 3. It, thus, appears that the order dated 16.7.2004 is based on the order dated 19th September 2003 passed in group of writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No. 7054 of 2003 and other connected matters. The counsel for the petitioner heavily relies upon paragraph 5 - 2 - of the said order that reads, thus: - “5. Under such circumstances, this Court keeping in view the nature of grievance and the delay caused for redressal of such grievance and corresponding duty/liability of the concerned authority considers it expedient to dispose of all these writ petitions with a direction that the sanctioning authority/concerned authority/respondents must fully redress the grievance of the petitioners raised in the writ petition and file two paragraphs affidavit personally sworn by the concerned authority by 20th October, 2003 that the grievance of the petitioner has fully been redressed/partly redressed and annex the details in the format placed below after serving copy on the learned counsel for the respective petitioner, which shall be placed on the respective records of the case. The said authority shall also attach Photostat copy of sanction order/authority/authorization/receipts of payment made with respect to redressal of the grievance, failing which the said authority shall be liable to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- from his pocket to the petitioner and the respective petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit upon which this Court shall take serious view of the matter and may consider to suo motu initiate contempt proceeding as well against such authority. On filing of two pages affidavit by the petitioner, the matter shall be listed „For Orders‟. The petitioner may also serve a copy of this order along with the copy of writ petition upon the non-appearing concerned authority either personally or through registered post for its strict compliance. It is, however, made clear that all such authority referred to above shall not be allowed to take any defence that he was not aware of this order.” 4. He submits that although the direction by the Court to the respondents was to fully redresss the grievance of the petitioner raised in the writ petition, but the respondents have only made payment of Rs.44,245/- towards retirement benefit and the entire due payment has not been made. 5. We carefully perused paragraph 5 of the afore- noticed order. It is pertinent to note that in paragraph 6 of the order - 3 - (i.e. immediately after paragraph 5) the Court observed thus: - “6. Further, if any of the petitioner feels aggrieved by the redressal of his grievance, he will be at liberty to file representation with full detail before the authority concerned, which if filed within two weeks the authority concerned shall consider the same and dispose it of by a reasoned order within two weeks thereafter.” 6. It would be thus seen that the Court has given liberty to the petitioner to make representation with full details before the authorities concerned, if there was any grievance about the partial redressal of the grievance. 7. Be that as it may, the conduct of the opposite parties does not amount to wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order dated 16.7.2004 and, therefore, we find no justification to proceed further in this contempt petition. 8. M.J.C. is disposed of accordingly. 9. If advised, the petitioner may follow the course suggested by the Court in paragraph 6 of the order passed in group of matter C.W.J.C. No. 7054 of 2003 and other connected matters. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-