Judgment Heard Mr. J. 1. P Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 Mr. Rameshwar prasad. learned counsel for Opposite Party no. .4 2. By order dated 11th July, 1995 given in this M. J. C. No. .933 of 1994 [1995 (2)PLJR 632], I found that the State authorities did No. t act fairly and their intention was No. t to comply with the order of this Court given in C. W. J. C. No. .11754 of 1992 [1996 (1)PLJR 128] which amounted to gross contempt. However considering the entire facts and circumstances. Opposite Parties No. .1 to 4 were given last chance to purge the contempt by complying with the direction of this Court in the aforementioned C. W. J. C. No. .11754 of 1992 within a week from the date of judgment/order passed in this case i. e. from 11th July, 1995. Thereafter it appears that the said opposite parties moved in Letters Patent Appeal No. .674 of 1995 before the Division Bench of this Court in which on 14th July 1995 an interim order was passed staying further proceedings in this matter. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that by judgment and order dated 15th No. vember, 1995, the said l. P. A. has been dismissed as being not maintainable by the Division Bench and the matter was directed to be placed before me for m. J. C. No. .933 of 1994 [1995 (2) PLJR 632] passing appropriate orders. Accordingly, this matter has been listed today for orders. 3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the opposite parties have moved the Hon ble Supreme court against the judgment and order passed in the L. P. A. as well as against the order 11th July, 1995 passed in this M. J. C. application in order to get an order from the supreme Court. 4. By No. w it is well settled that mere filing of special leave petition in the supreme Court against any judgment/order does No. t mean that this Court should stay its hands in porceeding further for compliance of the judgment/order. It is for the opposite parties to satisfy the Hon ble supreme Court about the urgency of the matter. 5. By No. w it is well settled that mere filing of special leave petition in the supreme Court against any judgment/order does No. t mean that this Court should stay its hands in porceeding further for compliance of the judgment/order. It is for the opposite parties to satisfy the Hon ble supreme Court about the urgency of the matter. 5. In the present matter a direction was issued in the connected writ petition being c. W. J. C. No. .11754 of 1992 as far back asion 19.4.1994 [1996 (1) PLJR 128] for payment of salaries of the employees of the bihar State Agro-Industries Development corporation who have been made to starve since No. vember, 1992 even though they are ion the roll of the Corporation and work is being taken from them. In fact, it is too much that the opposite parties No. w expect any indulgence from this Court in such a matter, and thus, they do not deserve any accommodation. Accordingly, I do not find any justification to postpone compliance of the direction. 6. By order dated 11th July, 1995, Shri chandra Mohan Jha, Shri Sachchida Nand sinha, Shri Vishwa Nath Singh and Shri madan Bihari Sharan (Opposite Parties No. .1 to 4 respectively) were given opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with the direction of this Court given in the aforementioned writ case and report to this court within a week from that date (i. e.11th July, 1995), failing which necessary order was to be passed imposing punishment against them. However, in view of the interim order passed in the said L. P. A, the said direction was No. t complied. The L. P. A. was also disposed of on 15th No. vember, 1995, i. e. about two weeks earlier, but it appears that No. endeavour was made by the opposite parties either to comply with the direction of this Court within the time fixed or to move the Supreme Court for early hearing of the special leave petition which are claimed to have been filed by them. 7. However, I direct the aforementioned opposite parties to comply with the direction given on 11th July, 1995 in this M. J. C. application within a week from today to avoid any order of punishment being imposed upon them. 8. 7. However, I direct the aforementioned opposite parties to comply with the direction given on 11th July, 1995 in this M. J. C. application within a week from today to avoid any order of punishment being imposed upon them. 8. List this matter for orders on 7th december, 1995 as first case, subject to part heard, if any when the aforementioned opposite parties should personally present in the Court.