KAPILDEO PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE SARYUG SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ALOK BARDHAN CHATURVEDY, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, SCIENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the case was taken up on 6.1.2009, this Court noticed that, in spite of order dated 16.7.2007 passed in the writ matter for payment of dues of the petitioner within two months, steps had been taken for compliance of the orders only on 13.3.2008 and onwards. Therefore, this Court directed the Director, Science and Technology to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded with for contempt for not taking up the matter of the petitioner within the time fixed by this Court. He was also directed to show cause as to why, due to delay caused in taking up the matter for compliance of the order of this Court, interest should not be awarded to the petitioner on his due amount and cost of filing of this contempt application be not awarded to him. In compliance to the said order, a show cause has been filed in this Court on Monday i.e. 2nd February, 2009.

(2.) In the show cause it is stated that after passing of the order by this Court, the petitioner filed his representation alongwith copy of the order on 4.12.2007 i.e. after four and a half months of passing of the order. It is stated that thereafter the deponent of the show cause sent a request letter vide letter no. 680 dated 13.3.2008 to the Director, B.I.T., Sindri as also to the petitioner requesting them to make available the Pre -Audit bill for payment of difference of salary. Further progress in the matter has also been mentioned in the show cause. However, it is apparent that till the order dated 6.1.2009 passed by this Court payment had not been made to the petitioner. From paragraph 5 of the show cause, it appears that the Bank Draft in respect of due amount of the petitioner dated 20.1.2009 has been sent to the petitioner through Speed Post on 21.1.2009 only. From the show cause, it is apparent that in spite of filing of this contempt application and in spite of receipt of information and a copy of the same, the matter was not expedited by the Director, Science and Technology and it was only after the order dated 6.1.2009 was passed that prompt action was taken and the admitted amount of the petitioner was sent to him through Bank Draft dated 20.1.2009.

(3.) IT is apparent that the Director, Science and Technology, the deponent of the show cause has taken the matter very casually. There is nothing in the order of the writ Court to show that the petitioner was required to file a representation along with the copy of the order of this Court for initiation of the process of the payment to him. The said order was passed by the writ Court in presence of the learned counsel for the State and therefore, in absence of any pleading to the contrary, it can be presumed that the Director, Science and Technology had got the information about the order passed by this Court promptly. It is also not pleaded that any step was taken by him for filing any appeal in the matter.