IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3993 of 2009 DEVANAND JHA, S/O LATE BACHHU JHA, R/O VILL- MURALICHAK, P.S. BISFI, DISTT. MADHUBANI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ROAD NO. 13, RAJIV NAGAR, P.S. RAJIVNAGAR, PATNA-24, DISTT. PATNA. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHRI AMIR SHUBHANI, S/O NOT KNOWN THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINORITY WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BARRACK NO. 6, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. DR. M.A. EZAZI, S/O NOT KNOWN THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, MINORITY WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BARRACK NO. 6, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. SHRI RAM GHULAM RAM, S/O NOT KNOWN THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, VISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. SHRI INDRAJEET SINGH DHARIWAL, S/O NOT KNOWN THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. --------- Opposite Parties ----------- 3 6.4.2011 An application at Flag-R has been pressed by the counsel for the petitioner for revival of contempt application, MJC No. 3993 of 2009 (present case) on the ground that the payment of ACP was not made despite an assurance given to this Court as recorded in the order dated 4.8.2010 and, therefore, this Court should accord permission for revival of this case. Counsel for the State has filed his reply to the said application, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner has been requested to appear before the competent 2 authority of the Minority Welfare Department for collecting the amount covered by first ACP for Rs. 1,07,097/-. Counsel for the State in fact has also produced the photocopy of the bankers cheque dated 4.4.2011 drawn in the name of the petitioner for the aforementioned amount of Rs. 1,07,097/-. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that the said amount does not cover the financial benefit of the two ACPs nor opposite parties have made payment of the revised pensionary benefit and other retirement benefit to which the petitioner would become entitled on grant of 1st ACP. Neither in the writ application nor in the contempt application, this Court had made any adjudication with regard to the retirement benefit or its revision or even in fact that of 2nd ACP. In that view of the matter, the prayer for revival of this contempt application in view of the subsequent event of the opposite parties being ready to pay the amount of Rs. 1,07,097/-, the amount of 1st ACP, has become infructuous. 3 The prayer for revival of the contempt application therefore is rejected. It, however, goes without saying that such rejection of revival of contempt application by this order will not come in the way of the petitioner in claiming his other retirement benefit that may get enhanced on account of grant of ACP nor the same would stand in the way of the petitioner in claiming the benefit of 2nd ACP. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)