IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2421 of 2009 Kapildeo Prasad Singh, S/o Late Saryug Singh, resident of village Simari, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani…………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Alok Bardhan Chaturvedy, father’s name not known to the petitioner, Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Science and Technology Department, Govt. of Bihar. 2. Dhurub Prather, father’s name not known to the petitioner, Director, Science and Technology Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The State of Jharkhand. 4. A.N. Singh, father’s name not known to the petitioner, Director, Bihar Institute of Technology, Sindri, Dhanbad. 5. Sri D.S. Dhariwal, Father’s name not known to the petitioner, Accountant General, Bihar, Patna…………………………………………………………………….Respondents ----------- For Petitioner: Mr. Shankar Kishore Shahi, Advocate For the State: Mr. Apurva Kumar, A.C. to S.C. No.10 3 20.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. This is the second contempt application arising out of the order dated 16.07.2007 passed in CWJC No. 13687 of 2006. The said writ application was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to pay petitioner scale of Rs.1500-2750/-, in the light of the office order vide Memo No.1882 dated 31.10.2000, as contained in Annexure-4 therein within 2 two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. The said order having not been complied, petitioner had moved this Court through M.J.C. No. 1584 of 2008. In the said contempt application, notice was issued to the opposite parties and it was only after that the opposite parties took steps, complied the order and paid difference of salary to petitioner through cheque date 20.01.2009, a photo copy whereof is Annexure-A to the show cause. In the circumstances, the contempt application was disposed of but for delay, cost of Rs.5000/- was awarded which has admittedly been paid to petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner now is that in view of such pay-scale having been allowed to petitioner, his pensionary benefits should also be recalculated and difference of the same should also be paid. In this regard, he refers to a letter of the Accountant General, Bihar addressed to the Director, Science and Technology dated 01.08.2010, as contained 3 in Annexure-9, with the reply to the show cause. The order passed by this Court in the writ matter was confined to grant of pay-scale to petitioner. Therefore, technically, the opposite parties are not in contempt. But it goes without saying that since this Court had directed the respondents to grant particular scale of petitioner, fixation of that scale had to be done and communicated to him and consequential orders flowing from the same had also to be passed and difference of amount becoming due to the petitioner had also to be paid. If the Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna considers that for each and every step, a separate mandamus is required to be issued he is under mistaken notion. The consequential steps which had to be followed with compliance of the direction of this Court, had to be taken in normal course and direction in this regard is treated to be inherent in direction of the court. However, in the facts and 4 circumstances of this case, this Court does not intend to proceed in the matter against the opposite parties. The contempt application is disposed of. But disposal of the contempt application shall not be constructed as liberty to the Director, Science & Technology Department not to take follow-up steps consequent to the grant of that scale to the petitioner. Director, Science & Technology Department is directed to take all consequential steps in the matter by communicating to the petitioner the fixation of scale and calculate all the benefits including retiral benefits on that account and release difference of amount which may become due on that account to him immediately. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)