IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4000 of 2009 1. VIKASH KUMAR S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHARY R/O SAUBHAGYA SHARMA PATH, BAILEY ROAD, P.O. VETENARY COLLEGE, PATNA-800 014, PRESENTLY POSTED AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (GARDEN DIVISION) DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. SRI BRAJESH MALHOTRA S/O NOT KNOWN SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPTT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, VISVESHARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 02 15.09.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the order on the writ petition has been complied with, but submits that the compliance has been done only Yesterday when the direction was for compliance forthwith. He therefore raises a claim for salary because of delayed compliance. The claim of the petitioner appears to have gross substance. This Court, however, feels handicapped in considering that issue in the contempt jurisdiction. Any claims for salary during the intervening period cannot be the subject matter of adjudication in this contempt proceeding, even if the petitioner appears to be having a claim in respect thereof. That is an aspect to be considered in fresh writ petition. This application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)