Judgment P.K.Sarkar, J. 1. This M.J.C. application has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 3-7-97 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3151/93 by a Bench of this Court. The Additional Advocate-General No. 3 appears on behalf of the opposite parties and has already filed show-cause on behalf of O.P. No. 4, Special Officer, Biharsharif Municipality, Biharsharif. 2. The brief facts leading to this application is as follows. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Tax Daroga in Biharsharif Municipality in January 1959 and his date of birth was recorded as 5-8-43 in his Service Book on the basis of his School Leaving Certificate. Subsequently, the petitioner started functioning as Tax Daroga since the year 1989. However, as one Sukhdeo Prasad was to be appointed as Tax Daroga, being an Ex- Military man, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Tax Daroga. So, he filed a writ application before this Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 16/92 which is pending for hearing. Subsequently, at the instance of the said Sukhdeo Prasad, a show-cause was asked from the petitioner on a complaint made that his date of birth is 2-6-1934. The petitioner filed show-cause reply but the Authority without considering the facts and without considering the relevant papers issued an order that the petitioner should retire from service with effect from June, 1992, treating his date of birth as 2-6-1934. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3151/93 which was heard and disposed of vide order dated 3-7-97 with the following observations: If the respondents wanted to retire the petitioner treating his date of birth as different from the one mentioned in the service book, they were required to formally determine the age i.e. the date of birth of the petitioner. The Court also observed: I would like to observe in this connection that even if in a case where the employee has worked beyond the due date of superannuation, he is entitled to be paid his emoluments unless such continuance is found to be a result of any fraud or mis-representation played by him. The Court also observed: I would like to observe in this connection that even if in a case where the employee has worked beyond the due date of superannuation, he is entitled to be paid his emoluments unless such continuance is found to be a result of any fraud or mis-representation played by him. Where the person is allowed to continue in service on the basis of the recorded date of birth and later the entry is revised, there is no question of his continuing in service as a result of fraud and misrepresentation and, therefore, he is to be paid salary irrespective of the result of inquiry as regards date of birth. In other words, in the present case, in the event the respondents come to the conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner is some other date than the one mentioned in the service book, he will be entitled to his salary for the period he had worked and no recovery of the same shall be made from his post retirement dues. 4. However, the respondent No. 4 has remained silent till all those years and has not complied with the aforesaid order of the Court. Hence, this M.J.C; application was filed on 17-8-98. It is submitted that the respondents have disobeyed the order of the Court and, thereby, committed Contempt of Court. 5. A show-cause has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 wherein it is submitted that C.W.J.C. No. 3151 /93 was disposed of by Hon ble High Court on 3-7-97. While quashing the orders in Annexures-1 and 2 of the said writ petition, liberty was given to O.P. No. 4 to hold an inquiry after complying the rules of natural justice. It is further contended that Shri Muxnilal Mochi took advice from G.P., Nalanda, and gave notice to the petitioner with a direction for production of original school certificate. It is said that the petitioner did not reply the said notice as contained in Annexure-A of the show-cause. Thereafter, another notice was issued to the petitioner dated 9-9-97 which is Annexure-3 to show-cause. It is said that the petitioner did not reply the said notice as contained in Annexure-A of the show-cause. Thereafter, another notice was issued to the petitioner dated 9-9-97 which is Annexure-3 to show-cause. It is further submitted that on 11-9-97 the petitioner filed an application from which it is evident that the petitioner received the aforesaid two notices as contained in Annexures-A and B to show-cause but he did not produce the two certificates as demanded by the then Special Officer, Biharsharif Municipality. Thus, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to place his case. But the petitioner neither appeared nor produced any documents. The Special Officer, Biharsharif Municipality, passed orders dated 15-10-97 which is Annexure-C to the show-cause. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the directions of the Court in the aforesaid writ petition No. C. J.C. No. 3151 /93 disposed of on 3-7-97 stands complied and no dis-obedience of the said order was made. It is further submitted that the deponent has highest regard for the orders and directions of the Hon ble High Court. He cannot think of disobeying the orders and directions of the Hon ble Court. The matter was heard. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not given any opportunity to place his case as directed in C.W.J.C. No. 3151/ 93 and the entire actions of the respondent No. 4 is an eye wash and thus he has committed violation of the orders of the Court. 7. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that compliance of the directions of the Hon ble Court in the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 3151/93 passed on 3-7-97 was made by the respondents who have given notices to the petitioner repeatedly but the petitioner did not chose to appear and thereby co-operate in the inquiry. In that view, the order had to be passed ex-parte in his absence. So, the order of the Hon ble Court has been complied in spirit. The merit of the order cannot be challenged and looked into within the scope of this M.J.C. application. If the petitioner has anything to say, he will have to file a special writ application for that purpose. In that view of the matter, the learned Additional Advocate-General contends that this M.J.C. application is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. 8. If the petitioner has anything to say, he will have to file a special writ application for that purpose. In that view of the matter, the learned Additional Advocate-General contends that this M.J.C. application is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed. 8. On perusal of the record and also the submissions of the parties, it appears that an order has been passed by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure-C to the show-cause) in obedience to the directions given in the writ application C.W.J.C. No. 3151/93. It also appears that notices were given to the petitioner, though, it is not clear whether notices were properly served or not. However, as the petitioner himself accepted the service of the notices by filing an application as mentioned in Paragraph-8 of the show-cause, it cannot be said that he had no information about the inquiry. The petitioner contends that there is no question of producing two certificates as asked for as only one certificate is available. The above facts should have been placed before the Inquiry Committee at the time of enquiry. Since, an order has already been passed, the merit of the said order cannot be challenged within the scope of this M.J.C. application. 9. In this view of the matter, this M.J.C. application is dismissed.