IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2847 of 2007 DINA NATH PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Md. Abu Haider For the respondents :Mr. Vikas Kumar --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 5th September, 2008 By means of this MJC, the petitioner prays that the respondents be hauled up in contempt for disobedience of the order dated 17th November, 2005. 2. In the order dated 17th November, 2005, the Division bench of this Court considered the matter thus: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that it is not necessary at all to go into that question for the simple reason that that it is an admitted position that the appellants are the employees of the BISCOMAUN (Cooperative Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act). It is also an admitted position that the BISCOMAUN is discharging a public duty and in such a situation it will not be proper on the part of the respondents to deny the payment of retiral dues. It is a different matter that because of the financial crunch, the payment is made in instalments or according to the year of retirement of the employees and it is for the BISCOMAUN to decide taking into consideration its financial position, but denying the claim of the appellants on a technical ground, in our view, does not appeal to us. Even in the case of Niraj Sinha vs. the Union of India and ors. (L.P.A. No.696/2005), the learned counsel for the society fairly stated that the dues of the employees 2 are not denied and the respondent – authorities are ready to pay the petitioner of that case in the same methodology as other employees’ dues are being paid on availability of funds in terms of seniority. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of with observation that if the respondents will consider claim of the appellants and will pay by adopting the same methodology as has been adopted in cases of other retired employees.” 3. Mr. Vikas Kumar, counsel for the Bihar State Co- operative Marketing Union (BISCOMAUN) submits that as per his instructions, all the employees who retired upto 31th December, 2005, have been paid their retiral dues. He submits that since the applicant retired prior thereto, he has been paid retiral dues. The counsel for the applicant feigns ignorance with regard to this aspect. 4. The counsel for the applicant, however, submits that even if it be assumed that the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner, his outstanding salary until the date of retirement has not been paid. 5. We are afraid, there was no controversy with regard to the outstanding salary in the appeal that has been disposed of on 17th November, 2005, of which contempt is alleged. The only consideration in the appeal with regard to payment of retiral dues. 6. Since the counsel for the respondents states that all employees of BISCOMAUN, who retired upto 31st December, 2005 have been paid their retiral dues, we have no reason to disbelieve him. 3 7. No further order needs to be passed in this application. 8. MJC stands disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/