IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3255 of 2009 GUPTESHWAR RAM, S/O LATE ADITYA KAHAR, R/O VILL.- BARAWAN, P.S.- JAMHOUR, DISTT.- AURANGABAD ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.KUNDAN KUMAR (D.M.), DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD. 3. JAYANT KUMAR (S.D.O.), SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, AURANGABAD. ---Opp. Parties ----------- 2. 18.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Roy Shivaji Nath, learned Additional Advocate General no.3 appearing for the State. The complain of the petitioner is that the order of this Court dated 4.12.2003 passed in CWJC No.4547 of 2000 directing the authorities concerned to settle his retiral dues while disposing of similar nature of case, vide Annexure 1 to the contempt application, has not been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner represented his claim for pension. However, the petitioner is not being paid his pension and, as such, the authorities have violated the order. A show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the competent authority upon considering the case of the petitioner has passed a reasoned order vide order dated 30th of January, 2010, as contained in Annexure C to the show cause, whereby upon - 2 - considering the relevant circular of the State Government with regard to the payment of pension, the claim of the petitioner was found not admissible since the petitioner did not complete the minimum service of ten years as a Government servant on the date of his superannuation on 1.12.1999 taking into account the fact that. the petitioner, who was Dafadar, was declared as a Government servant with effect from 1.1.1990. It is accordingly submitted that since the order of this Court has been complied with, this contempt application need not proceed further. Considering the submissions of the parties, since the order with regard to the claim of the petitioner for pension has been considered and a reasoned order has been passed, vide Annexure C, this contempt application need not proceed. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proposes to represent against the aforesaid order dated 30th of January, 2010 (Annexure C) before the authority concerned claiming relaxation of the required ten years of service to entitle him to get pension. The M.J.C. application, accordingly, stands disposed of. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)