IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2506 of 2010 SUJEET KUMAR SON OF SRI RADHA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BANARASIGHAT P.S. BARH, DISTT. PATNA. …. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHANTI DEVI, THE LIBRARY SUPERINTENDENT, BIHAR, PATNA AT SINHA LIBRARY, CHHAJUBAGH, PATNA. 3. SRI SATENDRA BHUSHAN, THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER-CUM-SECRETARY, DISTRICT LIBRARY, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA. 4. SRI BALESHWAR PRASAD, THE LIBRARIAN, DISTRICT CENTRAL LIBRARY, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA. … OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 3. 30.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Opposite Parties. The writ petition was filed on 26.11.2009 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General. The second copy was intended to facilitate an early filing of counter affidavit by the respondents to assist the court in timely dispensation of justice. No counter affidavit was filed. The Court on 11.1.2010 granted six weeks adjournment to the respondents for filing of counter affidavit. Despite the indulgence granted by the Court the respondents did not consider it necessary to file a counter affidavit. Noticing the physical disability of the petitioner, the Court held that the conduct of the respondents in withholding his salary was shocking to the conscience of the Court. The writ petition was disposed with directions to examine his claims as also to initiate appropriate proceedings against under the (EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND 2 FULL PARTICIPATION) Act, 1995 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the concerned if there was no sufficient justification for withholding salary. The show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties at paragraph 7 states that this Court despite a request did not grant them adjournment for filing of counter affidavit and therefore proper facts could not be placed before the Court. The counter affidavit acknowledges subsequent payment to the petitioner much belatedly after the filing of the contempt application and time granted for filing of a show cause on 9.2.2011. Payment has been made on 28.3.2011 by cheque stated to have been transferred in the Bank at Biharsharif. The show cause has been filed today during the course of proceedings and therefore counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that he is not in a position to make any comments upon the same. The conduct of the opposite parties has already been noticed in the writ petition. Their contumacious conduct is further compounded from paragraph-7 of the show cause. At this stage, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the pleadings at paragraph-7 of the show cause. He is permitted to do so. The writ Court had further directed that if the authorities were satisfied that there was no justification for 3 withholding the salary of the petitioner leading to the institution of the writ application, they were required to adequately consider the conduct of the delinquent in the light of the provisions of the Act. The show cause is completely silent on this part of the order. Directions contained in the order of the Court are not mere platitudes but are meant to be complied with. The State Government shall ensure that the matter is appropriately referred to the Chief Commissioner and Commissioner for persons with disabilities under Chapter-XII of the Act. If the State Government has not appointed a Chief Commissioner or Commissioners under the Act, this Court directs the State Government to refer the matter to such other appropriate authorities as deemed fit for compliance of the order of the Court. The Court at this stage has no reason to disbelieve the statement being made on oath with regard to the payment by the opposite parties. Should the faith put by the Court in the opposite parties be belied circumstances warranting, the Court may proceed in the matter appropriately. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the quantum of payment made, he may appear before the opposite party no.2 who shall forthwith furnish him a statement of accounts of the manner in which the dues has been calculated. If the petitioner represents in pursuance of the same, it is 4 expected that the same shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law without prejudice to the further rights of the petitioner with regard to the same. The application stands disposed off. Ibrar/- ( Navin Sinha, J.)