IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1799 of 2007 MUKESH KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ----------- 6. 27.02.2009 I.A. No.1270 of 2009 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Vaishali, opposite party no.2 intimating this Court that the entire back wages of the petitioner have been paid to him with increments as was informed to him by the Circle Officer. Therefore, a prayer has been made in the application to modify the order dated 28.1.2009 by which the District Magistrate, Vaishali and the Circle Officer, Patepur were restrained from drawing their salary till the dues of the petitioner are fully paid to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that dues of the petitioner have now been paid to him. In this case, while disposing of the writ application, this Court had directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioner forthwith treating him in continuous service and pay his basic salary within eight weeks. The order in the writ application was passed on - 2 - 13.4.2007. The authorities sat over the matter almost for 13 months and thereafter, it appears that, when they received notice of the contempt application, they filed Letters Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 358 of 2008 in May, 2008. That L.P.A. was dismissed by order dated 9.9.2008. In spite of dismissal of the L.P.A., they have again taken almost four months’ time to comply with the orders of this court. The facts show that the opposite parties have been negligent in the matter and were taking the orders of this Court too casually and had no intention to comply with the same till coercive orders were passed by this Court by order dated 28.1.2009. It is apparent that it is a fit case in which contempt proceeding should have been initiated against the opposite parties and they should have been punished for sitting over the matter so long and in addition, they should have been made liable to pay interest on the amount due to the petitioner and cost from their own pocket. However, learned counsel for the petitioner does not intend to press for the - 3 - same and he is satisfied with the compliance of the orders. In that view of the matter, this Court does not intend to proceed in the matter further. The order dated 28.1.2009 restraining the opposite parties from drawing their salary is recalled. However, the opposite parties are hereby warned that in future if it is found that no action is taken for compliance of the orders/directions of this Court in any manner within the time stipulated in the order, the same shall be viewed very seriously by this Court. Since the order of this Court has been complied with, the application is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned Standing Counsel No.1. B.T. (J.N. Singh, J.)