Patna: The Patna High Court has taken a strong view of the Bihar government’s failure to comply with its earlier direction in a long-running post-retiral benefits matter, holding that the concerned authorities are prima facie under contempt.
In its order dated September 9, 2026, in M.J.C. No. 199 of 2020, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 8221 of 2016, Justice Harish Kumar rejected the submissions made on behalf of the state and directed the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, to file a fresh show-cause affidavit explaining why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the concerned authorities for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the High Court’s earlier order.
2017 order remains unimplemented
The case concerns the petitioner’s post-retiral benefits. In an order dated November 16, 2017, the High Court had taken note of the respondents’ statement that they had no issue with payment of whatever was payable to the petitioner.
The court consequently directed Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to ensure that the necessary sanction was issued for payment of the petitioner’s post-retiral dues for the period that the authorities accepted as service. The period was also to be counted for fixing his post-retiral benefits, with the exercise to be completed within two months of production of the order.
According to the September 9 order, however, no decision concerning the payment was taken for almost three years. After the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings, the concerned authorities took a different position, arguing that he had not completed 10 years of continuous service and was therefore not entitled to the benefit in question.
Court questions state’s subsequent stand
The High Court questioned how the authorities could take such a position without seeking modification or review of its earlier order.
The court observed that the decision taken on the advice of the Finance Department, without any modification or review of the High Court’s November 16, 2017 order, appeared to be “wholly misconceived”.
It further observed that the respondents were prima facie under contempt, noting that more than eight years had passed and the court’s direction had still not been implemented in letter and spirit.
State’s affidavits rejected
The court rejected the show-cause and supplementary show-cause affidavits filed on behalf of the concerned opposite parties.
It specifically directed the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, to file a fresh show-cause affidavit explaining why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the High Court’s order. The affidavit is to be filed preferably within three weeks.
Rahul Kumar, Advocate and arguing counsel for the petitioner, said: “The Court has rejected the State’s explanation and recorded a prima facie case of contempt. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, has now been called upon to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the High Court’s order.”
Matter listed for September 30
The matter has been listed for September 30, 2026. The Principal Secretary’s fresh show-cause affidavit is expected to address the court’s concerns over the alleged non-compliance with its earlier direction.
The High Court has, however, clarified that its September 9 order does not prevent the authorities from complying with the original court direction in the meantime.
The court’s observations are at the prima facie stage; the order calls upon the concerned authority to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated and does not itself finally determine contempt liability.
