IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3140 of 2007 CHANDRA DEO SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 18/12/2008 While disposing of the writ application by order dated 7.3.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.No.10737 of 2003, this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the respondents authorities and the respondents were directed to look into the relevant records and hold enquiry and take final decision within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation in accordance with law with regard to the claims of the petitioner. It was also directed that if the petitioner was found entitled to receive the proceeds of G.P.F., then the respondents shall sanction the same and make payment within a further period of two months thereafter. Today a show cause has been filed on behalf of District Superintendent of Education, Patna (Opp.Party No.5). With the show cause, various orders have been enclosed sanctioning the amount of the petitioner under different heads which were found due to the petitioner. - 2 - These sanction orders have been issued separately under different heads. Therefore, in terms of these sanction orders, opposite parties are required to give all benefits to the petitioner within two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to delayed compliance of the order of this Court, this Court should award cost against the opposite parties payable to the petitioner. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2008(4) PLJR 72. From the facts of the said case, it appears that the order of this Court in that case was complied with after 12 years. The opposite parties of that case tried to set up a case that some enquiry was being made with regard to working period of the petitioner. The Division Bench found the said explanation of the opposite parties as lame excuse as no enquiry could proceed for 12 years to justify delay in compliance of the order of this Court. In those circumstances, the Division Bench - 3 - imposed cost of Rs.11,000/- on the opposite parties to be realized from the person found responsible after holding enquiry and fixing responsibilities. In the present case, show cause had been filed earlier along with which an order passed by the opposite parties was enclosed as Annexure-A. From the order it appears that the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of defalcation and misuse of Government fund in the capacity of Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It also appears that after dismissal, the petitioner was absconding with all the records for which a criminal case was also instituted. From the order it also appears that on the date fixed petitioner had appeared but did not produce the records before the opposite parties to finally calculate his dues. Therefore, District Superintendent of Education, Patna was directed by the authorities of the Department to examine the claims of the petitioner from the records available with him and thereafter determine his claims and take steps towards payment of the same. Thus, it is apparent that the facts of - 4 - the case before the Division Bench as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner was quite different which necessitated imposition of cost. Facts of the present case, specially allegations and charges against petitioner, as appearing in Annexure-A to the show cause, does not make the petitioner entitled for any cost in the matter. Therefore, the said prayer of the petitioner is rejected. Since the orders of sanction have already been issued in this case, this Court is not inclined to proceed with the matter any further. Accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)