IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3162 of 2007 CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. with MJC No.113 of 2007 ARJUN PRASAD SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS with MJC No.3021 of 2006 RAMESH KUMAR SINHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS with MJC No.1435 of 2004 BISCOMAUN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Versus K.A.H.SUBRAMANIUM & ORS with MJC No.3137 of 2007 LALITA DEVI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.3230 of 2007 MOST. KEDLA DEVI . Versus BISCOMAUN THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR&ORS. with MJC No.2303 of 2009 GANPATI CHAUBEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.2524 of 2007 HAIDER ALI ANSARI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.2804 of 2007 ARJUN PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.3134 of 2007 ARUN KUMAR VERMA. Versus SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & ORS with 2 MJC No.3143 of 2007 RENU PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.2262 of 2008 SRI KEDAR PRASAD SHARMA Versus BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD. & ORS with MJC No.2944 of 2008 P.SHREEDHARA KURUP Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.2561 of 2007 ABHAY KUMAR RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.2562 of 2007 SUNIL PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.3161 of 2007 RABINDRA RAI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.1974 of 2008 SHAKUNTALA DEVI Versus BIHAR STATE COOPRATIVE MARKETING UNION & ORS with MJC No.2246 of 2008 NAGENDRA PRASAD Versus Dr. SUNIL KUMAR, CHAIRMAN,BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION AND OTHERS with MJC No.2806 of 2007 JAI PRAKASH SHARMA & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.2306 of 2008 AMBIKA RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with 3 MJC No.3159 of 2007 SHANKAR DAYAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.3194 of 2007 KAMAL PASWAN & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.3287 of 2007 URMILA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.591 of 2008 YOSHODHA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.592 of 2008 HARENDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.594 of 2008 CHANDA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.612 of 2008 MURLIDHAR SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.614 of 2008 BISHWANATH SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.1941 of 2008 AWADH PRASAD Versus CHAIRMAN, BINOD SINGH & ORS with MJC No.3635 of 2008 PRADEEP KUMAR Versus SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & ORS with MJC No.802 of 2008 4 KAMLESHWAR PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR with MJC No.229 of 2008 RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.270 of 2008 DHRUB NARAYAN PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.367 of 2008 DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR with MJC No.590 of 2008 SHANTI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.1960 of 2009 HARENDRA KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN BISCOMAN & ORS with MJC No.3240 of 2008 SHIV KALI DEVI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.1212 of 2010 SRI ABAD SINGH Versus BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD. PATNA AND OTHERS with MJC No.1704 of 2009 RAMANAND SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05. 05.01.2011 In all these contempt applications as per the earlier direction of this Court on the basis of fund available with the opposite parties, 5 pro rata payment has been ordered to be made and in fact has been made to most of the persons, who are petitioners before this Court in one application or the other. It is also known that this institution was on the brink of closure at one stage of time but revival has been made by the intervention of this Court as well as by a positive approach taken by the State Government. There is a solemn assurance to this Court that there are some funds which are in the pipe line and it is expected to be received by the organization from the State Government for its commitment made to the institution years ago, which is a subject matter of yet another proceeding before another Court. This amount has been stated to be in the range of nine crores of rupees which once paid will also be used to meet the obligation of the employees first. Looking at the limited resource and the source of income, Court allowed pro-rata payments which have already been made to the petitioners, who are before this Court but in case payments have not been made to left over persons so far it shall be made over to those petitioners within a reasonable time frame. So far as balance amount is concerned, no sooner resources are available with the opposites parties, they shall make endeavour to see that all past dues of the employees are cleared at the shortest possible time. In the above stated circumstance, all these contempt applications are brought to rest. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)