IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3629 of 2010 Vijay Kumar Yadav, son of late Dev Narayan, resident of village Rautara, P.S. Rautara, District Katihar … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, through Sri Bhushan Patil, Divisional Railway Manager, N. F. Railway, Katihar, P.S. and District Katihar 2. Sri Bhushan Patil, Divisional Railway Manager, N.F.Railway, D.R.M. Office, Katihar, P.S. Katihar, District Katihar 3. Smt. Manti Devi, wife of Late Dev Narayan, resident of Mohalla Officer’s Colony, H/o Anwarul Haque, Branch Manager, Mirchaibari, Katihar, P.S. Katihar, District Katihar … Respondents ---------------------------------- 6. 7.12.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the mother and the son were earlier at daggers drawn, this Court in view of their subsequent softened attitude towards each other would now hope and believe that good sense would prevail on both of them to resolve all their disputes amicably as was infact also earlier sought to be achieved by the order of this Court dated 22.5.2009 in M.A.No. 102/2006. Mr. Sushanta Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner (son), has submitted that in all the cases filed by O.P.No.3 against the petitioner the petitioner on his part in eager and prepared to file a joint compromise petition in terms of the earlier order of this Court dated 22.5.2009. Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.No.3 (mother), has also submitted that O.P.No.3 shall also remain present in the concerned court on the next date to give a final shape to the proposed compromise by signing joint compromise petition for its being accepted in the concerned court. 2 Considering that a mutual voluntary offer has been made by both the petitioner and O.P.No.3 for entering into compromise in keeping with the earlier direction of this Court in the order dated 22.5.2009 in M.A.No. 102/2006, being the subject matter of this contempt application, this Court would direct the concerned court to dispose of such joint compromise petition on the same day if the petitioner and O.P.No.3 would appear in person and also convey their willingness to compromise the matter. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development and the resultant direction, this application has become infructuous specially when Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned counsel for the Railways, has also conveyed that the arrears of family pension to respondent no.3 to tune of Rs. 1,05,570/- has already been credited in her Bank account on 30.11.2011. Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for O.P.No.3, would however submit that the authorities of Railway have not complied the directions in letter and spirit and that O.P.No.3 was still entitled for payment of some more amount of arrear of family pension. This Court however had never quantified any specific amount by way of arrears of family pension payable to opposite party no. 3 and therefore no contempt can be said to have been committed by the Railway authorities. It would be still open for the opposite party no. 3 to approach Railway authorities for claiming any higher amount of arrear of family pension and if 3 in course of such re-examination the Railway authorities would find that something more was payable to O.P.No.3 on the head of arrears of family pension, they will also pay the same to opposite party no.3 an early date. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/