IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4942 of 2010 Arun Kumar Sinha . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3/ 29/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The only surviving issue is the actual physical payment to the petitioner for the post of Chief Engineer from 28.11.1990 to 31.1.1993 after adjustment of the salary already paid. Paragraph-5 of the show cause on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 speaks of the steps taken for compliance with procedural formalities to implement the order of the Court. The law stands too well settled that compliance with procedural formalities is absolutely no defence in a contempt proceeding. If the payment was to be made within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, that having not been done, a clear case of contempt is made out. The contention on behalf of the opposite parties that there was no clear-cut direction to make the aforesaid payment within a period of two months only compounds the contempt. An order of the Court of Law has to be read in its entirety and not in a truncated manner by culling out a line torn out of context. 2 The statement made in paragraph-5 of the show cause by Opposite Party No.2 is therefore taken as a solemn assurance and undertaking given by him to this Court that necessary steps for payment to the petitioner have been taken. The Court acting on assurance, faith and undertaking by a senior functionary of the State, at this stage, has no reason to disbelieve it. If he shall not abide by the assurance and undertaking to the Court, serious consequences may ensue for him. The contempt application is disposed in the in the fond hope that the legitimate dues shall be paid to the petitioner in accordance with the assurance and undertaking within a maximum period of two months from today. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)