IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3017 of 2009 MOST. JEERA DEVI WIFE PF DUKHIT PASWAN @ DUKHIT DUSADH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NADI P.O. MURARI, P.S. KARPI, DISTRICT ARWAL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MR. DAYA SHANKAR PANDEY, COLLECTOR, DISTRICT ARWAL. 3. MR. BISHWANATH PRASAD, THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, JAHANABAD BRANCH, JEHANABAD. ----------- 3 19/05/2010 A kind of lame excuse has been offered by the District Magistrate, Arwal that the dealing Assistant did not put up the file before him and, therefore, the direction of the Court passed earlier could not be carried out. Whether it is a reflection on the dealing Assistant or on the efficiency of the District Magistrate, it is for him to reflect upon. The Court is concerned about implementation of its direction and not the Assistant working under the District Magistrate. How the District Magistrate would like to deal with the dealing Assistant who is at fault, is for him to decide but something is required to be done in view of failure to implement the order dated 26.2.2009. In the show cause an order dated 15.05.2010 has been brought on record. By virtue of this order authorization - 2 - has been made for payment of family pension to the petitioner, namely, Jeera Devi as her husband died way back on 9.8.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order has not been communicated to the Bank through which payments have to be made and that is going to come in the way in implementation of the order of the District Magistrate dated 15.5.2010. Another aspect is that there is a direction that the Sub-divisional Magistrate will ensure the identity of the petitioner before payment. This contempt application is disposed of with a direction that Annexure-A to the show cause will be tendered by the petitioner to the Bank concerned and the Bank will be obliged to entertain the same even without a copy of the same being marked to them. Whether the omission was intentional or was mere an omission is not known but existence of such an order ought not to be disputed in view of the same having been brought on record in the affidavit and the show cause filed on behalf of the District Magistrate. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Arwal is also further directed that if the petitioner approaches him, he shall find - 3 - time, bereft of his all official appointments, and shall ensure that all the formalities with regard to the identification etc. are completed on the same day, she present herself. If the petitioner has to return to this Court for a dispute on this issue, the Court will deal with all the concerned respondents with utmost harshness. This contempt application is disposed of with the above observation. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)