IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1827 of 2008 Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh, son of late Ramji Prasad Singh, residing at Mohalla-Maripur, Aazad Colony, Road No. 4A, P.O. and P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, Town and District- Muzaffarpur ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri C. K. Anil, the Secretary-cum-Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Sri Rahul Sinha, Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Agriculture, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 4. Sri Rai Pramod Kumar, the Additional Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Agriculture, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 5. Sri Bishun Deo Prasad Singh, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Agriculture, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 6. Sri Allauddin, the Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Agriculture, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 7. Sri N. Srawan Kumar, the Director of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna, Department of Agriculture, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 8. Sri Baidya Nath Mahto, Principle Extension Training Centre Musahri, Muzaffarpur. 9. Sri Pratush Sinha, the Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna. 10. Sri I. S. Dhariwal, the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna ---- Respondents ---- Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 8. 19.10.2011 Heard Mr. Jitendra Nath for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, learned Additional Advocate General No.11 for opposite party nos. 1 to 9, and Mr. Ram Kinker Choubey for opposite party no.10. This application 2 under Section 12, read with Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 9185 of 2001, and alleges non- implementation of the order dated 1.6.2007, whereby the writ petition was allowed, and the respondent authorities have been directed to grant him benefits of the second time-bound promotion with consequential benefits. The two sets of contemners have placed on record their respective show-cause. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had joined the services of the Bihar Government on 5.6.1964 as Agriculture Inspector. He was given his first time-bound promotion in time, but was denied benefits of second time-bound promotion on completion of 25 years on 5.6.1989, leading to the writ petition. The same was allowed with the following direction: “3. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are hereby directed to grant to the petitioner the benefits of the second time-bound promotion with effect from the date he completed 25 years of service with all consequential benefits including the differential amount of salary as well as revision of post-retirement 3 benefits in the admissible pay-scale This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order.” 3. In view of non-implementation of the order, the petitioner preferred the present application for initiation of contempt proceeding against the two sets of opposite parties. The matter was placed before this Court on various occasions. By order dated 22.6.2011, the two sets of opposite parties were directed to implement the order forthwith and were directed to make payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by each set of the opposite parties. 4. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record that the State of Bihar after hiccups recommended to the Accountant General for payment of the differential amount of salary and re-fixation of pensionary benefits as per the order in question. It further appears to us that the authority slip has been issued by the Accountant General. It further appears that the State of Bihar has made payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. 5. The Accountant General has implemented the order on the writ petition. The authority slip as per the 4 recommendation of the State Government has been issued but has not so far paid costs of Rs.10,000/- granted by this Court. He has instead filed I.A. No. 5639 of 2011, for modification of the order dated 22.6.2011, whereby the cost was imposed on him. Apart from the position that no case is made out in this interlocutory application for recall of payment of costs, law is well settled that neither the order for payment of costs, nor the quantification of it, is ever challenged by a person who has been directed to pay the costs, inter alia, for the reason that the same has nothing to do with the merits of the case. The Court felt hurt by the conduct of the concerned party and directed to pay costs. A responsible functionary like the Accountant General completely overlooked this legal position, and has erroneously filed this interlocutory application for modification of the order. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the Accountant General prays to withdraw this interlocutory application. As prayed for by him, I.A. No. 5639 of 2011, is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. We are thus of the view that monetary benefits have been paid to the petitioner as per the direction of this Court in the writ petition. Nothing survives for 5 consideration. This application is disposed of. Let the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, pay the costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner forthwith. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)