IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1026 of 2010 1. PRABHA SINHA, W/O SRI KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, R/O MOHALLA - PRAGATI NAGAR (SHEO BAZAR) NEAR DHELAJI KA MANDIR, P.S - BHAGWAN BAZAR, P.O - CHAPRA, DISTRICT - SARAN, PIN-841301. … petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MR. DIPAK PRASAD,THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. MR. NAVIN KUMAR, THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. MR. I.D.S. DHARIWAL, THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) , BIHAR, VEER CHAND PATEL PATH . 5. MR. LOKESH KUMAR SINGH, THE COLLECTOR, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 6. MR. BIRENDRA MISHRA,THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 7. MR. ANIL KUMAR, THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BARIYARPUR. …Opposite parties. ----------- 2. 23.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 24.3.2009 in CWJC No. 3388 of 2009, the opposite parties have issued an Memo dated 19.7.2010 granting ACP to the petitioner w.e.f. 9.8.1999. While this Court would consider the said order to be sufficient compliance, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since consequential payment in terms of the order of ACP has not been 2 made, either he should be given time to verify the correctness of the order produced in Annexure-E or it should be held that opposite parties on account of non- extending the financial benefit of A.C.P. are still under contempt. In the opinion of this Court, once this Court would find that its order, confined to only considering the grievance of grant of ACP, has been complied there would be no justification for now continuing with this contempt proceeding inasmuch as this Court had not given any further direction for payment of consequential benefit, The opposite parties therefore cannot be held to be in contempt for not paying the actual amount in question involved under ACP granted to the petitioner. Nonetheless as the payment financial benefit of the said order dated 19.7.2010 is itself contemplated as would be apparent from last two paragraph of the aforesaid order, it goes without saying that now when the authorities have decided to grant ACP to the petitioner they would also do needful to extend the consequential benefit, if not already 3 extended to the petitioner, in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation, this MJC application is disposed of. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)