IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2036 of 2006 GEETA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : None For the respondents :Mr.Lalit Kishsore, Additional Advocate General-III ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan ------ Dated, the 7th August, 2008 None appears for the petitioner. The petitioner approached this court for direction to the respondents to pay her salary for the period November, 1999 to February, 2001, May, 2002 and December, 2002 to February, 2003. The said petition came to be disposed of on 13th December, 2004 by the following order: “Having heard learned counsel for the party and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it expedient that respondent no.4 takes decision on the representation of the petitioner, if already not taken, within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. I direct accordingly. In order to facilitate early disposal of the representation, petitioner, along with a copy of this order, shall annex the same. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion in regard to the entitlement of the petitioner and that shall be decided by respondent no.4 in accordance with law.” 2. The petitioner by means of this contempt application being MJC No.2036 of 2006 has raised grievance that the order dated - 2 - 13th December, 2004 has not been complied with by the respondents. 3. In response to this contempt application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.4 on 16th May, 2007 and it has been stated therein thus: “ 3. That the M.O./I.C. Dehri informed this office by his memo no.369 dated 20.04.2005 regarding payment to the petitioner which is her actual claim of salary and other dues. 4. That after receiving from M.O./I.C Sadar Block, Sasaram other actual and genuine dues also paid by M.O./I.C., Dehri to the petitioner. The M.O./I.C., Dehri memo no.1116 dated 13.09.2006 including Bank statement. 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the show cause, this contempt proceeding may kindly be dropped against the opposite party no.4 for which, if any inconvenience has been caused to this Hon’ble Court, this opposite party no.4 expresses his sincere regret and tenders unconditional and unqualified apology and begs to be pardoned.” 4. Annexure-A, Annexure-B and Annexure-C have also been annexed with the counter affidavit. 5. Having carefully considered the same, we find that the respondents cannot be held guilty of having defied the order dated 13th December, 2004. As a matter of fact, the order dated 13th December, 2004, has been complied with. 6. MJC is disposed of accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. Sunil