IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2060 of 2008 SARYU PRASAD SINGH son of late Jagdish pd. Singh, resident of village Gangora, P.S. Bihariganj, Dist. Madhepura. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri Sridhar Choudhary, the District magistrate, purnea 3.Sri Raj nandan choudhary, the District land Acquisition Officer, Purnea. ----------- 4 30/3/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. This is second round of the petitioner in approaching the alleged non compliance of order of this Court dated 1.7.1999 in C.W.J.C. No.9766 of 1998. It has to be noted that by order dated 12.7.1999 this Court in the operative portion had passed the following directions:- “Accordingly, I direct the State respondents to issue sanction order with respect to all the retrial dues, legally payable to the petitioner, within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and forward the same to the Accountant General, Bihar who will issue authority slip within two weeks thereafter. It is submitted that the petitioner has worked continuously during the period, in question, but the salary has not been paid to him though no departmental proceeding and/or judicial was ever initiated against the petitioner and/or pending at the time of his retirement. If the statement to the effect that the petitioner had worked during the said period, is found to be correct, in that event the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the period in question which must be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Having regard to the facts that the petitioner has retired in January, 1991 and even the admitted dues, legally payable to him, has not been paid till date, he is entitled to interest @ 10% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of respective payments along with cost assessed at Rs.1000/-. Both the 2 amount of interest and cost shall be paid along with the principal amount. However, the State respondent will be at liberty to realize the amount of interest and cost from the person/s found responsible for delaying the payment. This disposes of the writ application.’ It has to be noted that the petitioner had thereafter moved this Court again by filing a contempt application, M.J.C. No.936 of 2000, wherein this Court after recording compliance of the order had disposed of the same by the order dated 29.10.2003 by holding as follows:- “On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the order of which disobedience is complained and the show cause filed by opp. Party no.2, I am satisfied that there is no occasion to initiate a contempt proceeding against the opp.party. but the balance dues of the petitioner must be paid without any undue delay and not later than two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the office of the Dist. Land Acquisition Officer, purnea.’ Counsel now submits that a portion of order dated 29.10.2003 has not as yet been complied, inasmuch as, salary of 7- 1/2 years has remained unpaid. Let it be noted that such submission was earlier also made when this Court had refused to initiate a contempt proceeding by taking note that the last pay certificate of the petitioner was not received in the office of the District Land Acquisition Officer from the Consolidation office. Obviously, if on an earlier occasion this Court by taking note of the aforementioned circumstances had found no contempt with regard to balance payment of salary, today this Court cannot take any 3 different view and hold them to be in contempt. It is true that the Court in the order dated 29.10.2003 had observed for making payment of balance dues of the petitioner within the specified time, but there would be no contempt. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the State however would submit that the opposite parties had made each and every admissible payment as has been explained in the show cause reply filed by opposite party no.3. There is no rejoinder to such show cause reply filed by the petitioner and the oral assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner for non payment of salary for 7- 1/2 years cannot be accepted in absence of such pleadings on the part of the petitioner and therefore it would be difficult for this Court to reject the stand taken by the opposite party duly supported by an affidavit. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner can demonstrate before the competent authority with regard to non payment of 7-1/2 years of salary is incorrect, the authorities will be definitely required to reexamine the matter. The petitioner may in fact also lodge a fresh proceeding as is available to him in law for recovery of salary, if same has not been paid to him. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)