IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2422 of 2006 ARUN KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & others ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Advocate For the Opposite parties. : Shashi Kant Singh, J.C. to G.A. VI For the Zila Parishad, : Mr. Abhay Kumar Sinha, Advocate ----- P R E S E N T Hon’ble the Chief Justice & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 24th July, 2008. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 14th January, 2000 by the following order- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that having regard to the fact that the admitted claim of Rs. 48,130/- was also paid after almost nine long years and that too after the death of his father, it is a fit case in which the respondents should be saddled with heavy panel interest and cost. This court finds substance in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The deceased employee was not paid his post retrial dues on the date of his retirement nor the respondent Board bothered to clear the same during the life time of the deceased employee who expired on 7.3.95 i.e. after five and half years of his retirement. This depicts the most callous attitude on the part of the respondent Board to much so that till date even the aforementioned remaining dues have not been cleared despite notice of this writ petition 2 served upon them long back. Accordingly, this Court finds it to be a fit case for awarding penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforementioned admitted amount to be paid from due date till the payment has been/is made. Besides it is a fit case for awarding exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) which shall be paid by the respondent Board along with the aforementioned dues, including the interest within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary of the District Board, Muzaffarpur shall not draw his salary and any emolument till the said payments are made.” 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 14th January, 2000 has been complied with save and except the payment of interest for the period from 13.11.1989 to 30.3.1995. 3. In opposition to the contempt petition, show -cause has been filed by the Opposite party nos. 4 to 6 on 13.4.2007. Thereafter supplementary show- cause has been filed by these opposite parties on 6th July, 2007. In paragraph 3, 4 and 5 thereof, following statement has been made - “3. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph no.1 of the petition of M.J.C. is denied. The respondent authority had never violated the order of the Honourable High court passed in C.W.J.C.No. 5733 of 1997 dated 14.1.2000 willfully or deliberately rather had complied with the order passed by the Honourable High Court in C.W.J.C.No.5733/97 Vide Office Memo No.17/SA dated 18.2.2000 after obtaining legal advice dated 18.2.2000. 3 4. That in reply to the statement made in para 2 of the petition required no comment. The Hon’ble High Court rightly rejected the M.J.C. petition No.2740/05 for want of necessary party is the petitioner had not impleaded the Zila Parishad as necessary party. 5. That in reply to the statement made in para 3 of the petition is denied. The respondent authority has already paid retrial benefit of late Basudeo Prasad Singh to his legal heir Sri Arun Kumar Singh (petitioner) along with 18% simple interest per annum with the Rs. 10,000/- as exemplary cost in the light of order passed by Honourable High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5733/97 on the dated 14.1.2000 as per Annexure-A and B respectively. There was no order regarding payment of compound interest to the writ petitioner is illegal and not binding on the respondent Zila Parishad authority.” 4. Having considered the order dated 14th January, 2000 and averments made in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the supplementary show -cause filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 to 6, we are satisfied that there has been no deliberate disobedience and defiance of the order of this Court. 5. Contempt application (MJC) is accordingly rejected. Anil/ R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J.