IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3854 of 2009 ASHARFI PRASAD MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 4. 07.07.2010 In paragraph 6 of the contempt petition, petitioner has mentioned ten heads in respect of which he claims that his remaining dues have not been paid to him in compliance to the order dated 26.09.2008 passed in the writ application of the petitioner along with other cases in batch. However, there is nothing on record to show that after disposal of the writ application, petitioner had filed any application before the competent authority raising claim for payment of his remaining dues under those heads. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to proceed with the contempt petition. The same is dismissed. However, petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh application before the competent authority giving details of his subsisting claim under different heads separately within one month from today. If such an application is filed by the - 2 - petitioner, the same shall be considered and disposed of in terms of the directions issued in the order dated 26.09.2008 passed in the writ application of the petitioner and other analogous cases. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)