IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1632 of 2008 KULDIP MANDAL, S/O- LATE BEYASI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILAGE-SERBA, P.S.- GORAIYA, DISTRICT- BANKA, PRESENTLY RESIDING UNDER SURKHI KATH BACK OF LAW COLLEGE, P.S.- TILKAMANJHI, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH AJAY NAIK , THE COMMISSIONER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. SRI DEVI RAJAK, THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, IRRIGATON DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. SRI KAMESHWAR PRASAD, THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 4. SRI SANJEEVAN CHAUDHARY, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KHARAGPUR, DISTT- MUNGER 5. SRI KAMLA PRASAD, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GAYA PUMP NAHAR PRAMANDAL SURYAGARHA, IN THE DISTRICT OF MUNGER. 6. SRI ASHUTOSH KUMAR, TREASURY OFFICER, BANKA 7. SRI THAKUR PRASAD SINGH, THE TREASURY OFFICER, MUNGER 8. SRI LAKAKSHAN KUMAR SINGH, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUNGER. 9. SRI ASHISH KUMAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANKA. ----------- 3 25.07.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioner, by filing the present application, has prayed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for having willfully violated the order dated 1.10.2007. It appears that there were certain dues on account of arrears of salary for certain periods. Petitioner approached this court for a direction for payment thereof. Having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this court directed for filing of a representation before the appropriate authority with a direction that the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law within four weeks from such filing. It was further observed that if 2 any further amount is found due to be paid, the same should be paid within a reasonable time but not later than eight weeks from the disposal of the representation. There is agreement at the Bar that during the pendency of the writ application, the amount found due and admissible was paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that while paying the admitted dues, the authorities have deducted income tax from the said amount and as such they committed breach of the order. This court from perusal of the order dated 1.10.2007 does not find that any such direction was issued by this court. On the contrary, as observed, he was given liberty to file representation which was directed to be disposed of within the time frame and the amount, if any, found due on consideration of representation was/were directed to be paid.. Having perused the material on record and after hearing both the sides, this Court finds there is absolutely no case of willful violation of the direction of the Court. There is no merit in this application seeking initiation of contempt proceeding which is accordingly, dismissed. However, it is observed that if the petitioner is entitled to receive/refund of the deduction of Income Tax, he may represent before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )