IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.891 of 2011 Chandrakant Jha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 07 07.12.2011 Heard Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Arora, S.C.6 for the State. The petitioner is a superannuated employee of the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Unit Sakri, in the District Madhubani. Upon non payment of the pre and post retiral dues, the petitioner filed the writ petition and which was disposed of by order dated 03.05.2010 with liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, Patna or the appropriate authority concerned, together with details and which representation was required to be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation in accordance with law. On non compliance of the directions of this Court, the present contempt application came to be filed. A third supplementary show cause has since been filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in the present proceedings enclosing an order bearing Memo No. 154 dated 25.10.2011 passed upon consideration of the claims of the petitioner. It is further stated that as the payment is to be made from the amount to be received by the State from the purchaser/lease holder of the unit namely M/s Tirhut Industries Ltd., the same would be paid to the petitioner no sooner the amounts are received from the lease holder along with other employees. 2 Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, learned counsel for petitioner however disputes the calculation set out in the order and submits that the petitioner is entitled to certain further amount towards salary, as according to him the absent period has not been taken into account by the authorities. Be that as it may, as the order passed by this Court in the writ petition has since been complied by the opposite parties concerned, no case for contempt is made out. This application thus stands disposed of. The petitioner if so advised may raise his pending grievance before the authority concerned and which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Before parting, this Court would like to observe that as sufficient time has lapsed since the superannuation of the petitioner who has been waiting patiently to receive his rightful claims right since 2006, the authorities concerned would be well advised to expedite the payments by the lease holder so that the employees of the Corporation do not suffer by non payment of their dues. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)