IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1199 of 2007 SYEDUL HASNAIN SIDDIQUE son of late Ghulam Rabbani, resident of Mohalla Taldanga, P.S. Chirkundi, District Dhanbad, at present posted As Account-cum-Store Assistant, Bihar Rajya Beej Nigam Limited, Agriculture Form,Mithapur Patna-------------------------------petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.Sri N.S.Madhvan, the Agricultural Production Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Bihay Rajya Nigam Ltd. New Secretariat, Patna 3.Bijay Kumar Sinha, Director, Head Office,Patna Mithapur Agriculture Form, Patna 4.Sri Bijay Kumar Singh, the Managing Director, Bihar Raj Beej Nigam Ltd. Mithapur Agriculture Form, Patna 5.Dr.Nurul Ahad, the Chief of Finance, Bihar Raj Beej Nigam Ltd. Mithapur Agriculture Form,Patna 6.Sri Sanjay Chandra, Company Secretary, Bihar Raj Beej Nigam Ltd. Mithapur Agricultural Form Patna-------------------------------opp.parties ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Md.Manan Ahmad For the opp.parties :Mr.Gautam Kr.Yadav,J.C. to SC IV Mr.Shivaji Pandey,Sr.Advocate ------ 2. 7.8.2009 The petitioner claims violation of the order dated 22.3.2005 of this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to pay the petitioner arrears of salary on priority basis when the fund is available to them since in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Seed Corporation the stand taken was that because of financial crisis arrears of salary could not be paid to the petitioner and when the same is available the payment shall be made. 2 It is alleged by the petitioner in the contempt application that the Government of Bihar has already sanctioned an amount of Rs.162.84 lacs for the years 2006-07 under the head of salary. In the show cause the stand taken is that although the funds have been received from the State Government but they have been earmarked on year to year basis under different heads and there is no provision for payment of arrears of salary and the employees are being paid salary from the month of August, 2006 in the regular manner. In view of the aforesaid statements made in the show cause, considering the direction made in the order under contempt, no case for proceeding under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/