IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1062 of 2007 CHHOTAN PRASAD ROY S/O Late Kuldeep Roy, adopted son of Late Rang Lal Sahi, present Accounts Clerk in Irrigation Mechanical Division, Valmiki Nagar, West Champaran, Bihar Resident of Laugain, P.O. Tahwa, Via-Jhajha, police Station jhajha, District Jamui. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR, through Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 2.Shri Ashok Kumar Chaudhary the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 3.Shri K.N.Lal, Commissioner Cum Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4.Chandeshwar Singh Superintendent Engineer Mechanical Irrigation Mechanical Circle, Muzaffarpur. 5.Ram Kishore Singh, Executive Engineer (Mechenical Irigations Mechanical Division Balmiki Nagar, West Champaran.). 6.Ram Kewal Prasad, Superintendent Engineer Mechanical Irrigations Mechanical circle Mithapur, Patna. 7.Ram Ekwal Chaurasia Executive Engineer Mechanical (Irrigations Mechanical Division Bausi, District Banka.) ----------- 5 2/4/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Order of this Court dated 24.7.2006 in C.W.J.C. No.4656 of 2006 in respect of which the petitioner has made complaint before this Court alleging its violation reads as follows:- “In those circumstances, the impugned order dated 13th February, 2006 is quashed. It must be deemed that the petitioner remained and still continues to remain Accounts Clerk in the employment of the State since 07th November, 1981 notwithstanding the impugned order dated 14th February, 2006 and, accordingly, if in view of the impugned order dated 13th February, 2006 any remuneration due to the petitioner as Accounts Clerk has been denied to him, let the same be released to the petitioner within a period 2 of fifteen days from today.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such payment of salary which was supposed to be paid by 7th August, 2006, was not made and ultimately what has been said in the show cause filed today that such payment has been made for the period up to 9.11.2006 only, whereas, the petitioner was entitled to get such payment from 30.11.2008, the date of his retirement. Once this Court would find that the order has been complied by making payment, of course belatedly, there would be hardly any scope for continuing with the contempt proceeding specially when there was no quantification made in the order and the opposite parties have also admitted the claim of the petitioner for such payment. That being so, while this contempt application is fit to be disposed of by holding it to have become infructuous, the opposite parties are expected to ensure payment of salary to the petitioner for the period as admitted in their show cause reply. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)