IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2414 of 2006 MUKTI NATH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Verma, Adv. For the Opposite parties : Mr. Alok Kumar, JC to G.A.1 ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 9th July, 2008. The order dated 20th June, 2006 reads thus: - “As the claim of the petitioner relates to contractual dues, it is desirable that it should first receive the attention of the departmental authorities. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may raise his claim by filing a representation along with a copy of this order before the Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Patna. In case such a representation is filed the Chief Engineer shall have the petitioner’s claim duly examined so as to pass a final order on it within two months from the date of its filing. In case the claim or any part of it, is admitted the Chief Engineer shall also take steps for payment of the admitted dues to the petitioner. In case, however, the claim is rejected the Chief Engineer shall pass a speaking order, briefly assigning reasons for his decision.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order - 2 - dated 20th June, 2006 has been deliberately disobeyed. 3. The cause has been shown by Opposite party no.4. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the show cause read thus: - “4.That for the compliance of the aforesaid order after reviewing all aspects of the claim of the petitioner a reasoned order contained in memo no.279 dated 9.1.2006 has been passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Patna and vide order contained in memo no.354 dated 6.9.2007 directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.18,513/- to the petitioner. 5.That accordingly the S.D.O. Secretariat submitted a bill for the amount of Rs.18,513/- for payment to the petitioner and since there is calculation mistake in the bill which has been corrected and total sum of bill amount came to Rs.15,891/- which has been paid to the petitioner vide cheque no.BB 129271 dated 8.10.2007. 6.That the petitioner after receiving the final payment requested to refund the security deposit vide letter dated 9.10.2007 as such the security deposit amounting to Rs.2040/- has been paid to the petitioner vide cheque no. BB 129274 dated 9.10.2007.” 4. The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute about the receipt of the aforesaid amount but submits that interest has not been paid. 5. We are afraid, this issue is not and cannot be a subject matter of contempt since the order dated 20th June 2006 only directs that the claim of the petitioner shall be examined and the due payment will be made and if the claim is rejected, the Chief Engineer shall pass a speaking order, briefly assigning reasons for his decision. 6. Nothing further needs to be done in this contempt application. - 3 - 7. M.J.C. is disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-