IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4438 of 2010 RAM NIRANJAN CHOUDHARY . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . ----------- 2. 13.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Opposite Parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had directed payment of subsistence allowance, a right of a suspended employee, along with interest for delayed payment. The subsistence allowance has been paid belatedly without consideration for grant of interest as directed by the Court. The authorities never informed the petitioner of any requirement to furnish a certificate of not being engaged in any other employment business, vocation. If it was a precondition they were required to inform him. No sooner that the authorities informed him to do so on 2.4.2010, the petitioner did so on 13.4.2010. Counsel for the State submits that it was a statutory condition subject to which the subsistence allowance was to be paid. The petitioner is to be blamed for the delay in furnishing the certificate. The question of payment of interest does not arise. Grant of subsistence allowance during suspension is regulated by Rule 10 (1) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Rule 10(1) in the first proviso requires marking of attendance 2 at the headquarters. Rule 10(2) provides that a Government servant shall not be entitled for subsistence allowance unless he furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment business or profession. Ignorance of the law can be no excuse. If the statute required the submission of a certificate as a precondition, the onus to do so lay on the petitioner. The Court does not uphold the contention that it was the duty of the opposite parties to give him statutory notice. The order dated 2.4.2010 of the writ Court has to be read subject to statutory provisions. No Court of law can pass an order contrary to a statutory requirement. The contempt proceeding stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)