IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3079 of 2010 Parmeshwar Prasad Mahto . Versus State Of Bihar & Ors. . ----------- 8. 09.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. Opposite Party No. 2 is present in person also. A supplementary show cause filed today encloses an order dated 8.11.2011 stated to be in compliance of the order of the writ Court. Counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the order dated 8.11.2011 only grants him promotion but postpones the payment of monetary benefits citing procedural compliance whereafter the payment shall be made. Procedural compliance cannot be a defence in contempt proceedings. To that extent, the Court is satisfied that Opposite Party No. 2 by citing procedural reasons in defence of non-compliance has flouted the order of the writ Court and was liable to be proceeded in the contempt jurisdiction. However rather than to initiate contempt proceedings, when there has been part compliance, Opposite Party No. 2, on query by the Court submits that the order dated 8.11.2011 in so far as the latter part be considered may be treated as an undertaking 2 and assurance by him to the Court in a contempt proceeding, in person, that all procedures shall be complied with and the consequent monetary benefits and the promotion including revision of pensionary benefits consequent payment of legitimate dues etc. shall all be complied with within a maximum period of three months from today. Opposite Party No. 2 being a Senior Officer of the rank of Commissioner, the Court at this stage has no reason to doubt the assurance and undertaking being given by him. Should the faith put in him by the Court be belied, serious consequence may ensue for opposite party no. 2. Any further grievance that the petitioner may have in respect of the impugned order can only be agitated afresh in a fresh writ application. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)