Judgment Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 1. The petitioner has obtained a rule against respondent No.2, the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Bihar, to show cause as to why he should not be dealt with for committing contempt of this Court. 2. Earlier also, a similar rule was issued in M. J. C. No. 32 of 1977 (R) against the respondents for noncompliance of a part of the direction issued by this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 1095 of 1973 (R), dated 6.8.1976. By that direction the Government was asked either to finalise the seniority of the petitioner Sudhir Kumar Roy vis-a-vis respondents 3 to 9 of the said writ application by 31.12.1976, or in the alternative to place the petitioner above those respondents 3 to 9 with consequential benefits to him. When this order was not complied with, the petitioner had filed that M. J. C. No. 32 of 1977 (R) and the application was disposed of on accepting the unqualified apology of the contemners and on certain terms, namely, (1) to re-fix the date of seniority of the petitioner above Shri R. N. Kapoor with all consequential benefits flowing to him, (2) to pay pension and gratuity etc. admissible to him in consequence of this promotion, and (3) to consider his claim that the period of his re-employment should be treated as extension of his service. 3. In spite of the direction containing/the above terms, the Government failed to implement the sane and the petitioner has to come again with this application for a rule or contempt. 4. The disobedience of the above terms has not been controverted in the cause that has been shown on behalf of the contemners, but Mr. Standing Counsel wants time to implement the terms within a particular scheduled time and discharge the contemners. He further submits that he has not received any instruction from the respondents. 5. We are afraid since the application has been pending for more than four years and is running on the daily list under heading "For Hearing" for more than six months, the prayer of the Standing Counsel does not appear to be reasonable and accordingly it is rejected. 6. In the earlier contempt application also the contemners were indicated by this Court by long observations but that has not borne any fruit. 6. In the earlier contempt application also the contemners were indicated by this Court by long observations but that has not borne any fruit. Keeping into account all this conduct and the conduct of the contemners, we see no way out than to hold respondent No.2 guilty for contempt of this Courts order already mentioned above, and punish him with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 , and in default of payment of the fine within a period of two months from receipt of the copy of this order, he will have to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks, we direct the respondents to implement all the terms which were mentioned in the earlier M. J. C. application within two months from today.