ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner retired from MGM College, Jamshedpur in the year, 1995. When his retiral benefits were not paid, CWJC No. 3294/97 was filed. The writ application was disposed of on 20.1.1998 directing the respondents to sanction the retiral benefits including the pension of the petitioner by counting his past, services before taking over of the college in question by the State Government within two months along with statutory interest. When the said judgment was not complied with the petitioner filed the instant MJC No. 460/98, 3. Since 1998 till 2003 even during the pendency of this contempt proceeding the amount could not be paid to the petitioner. This Court, therefore, on 2.1.2003 passed the following order : "Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar. No one appears on behalf of the State. 2. The instant contempt proceeding arises out of an order dated 20.1.1998 passed in CWJC No. 3294/97R whereby the respondent-State was directed to sanction the retrial benefits including the pension of the petitioner by counting his past services before taking over of the college by the State Government. The petitioner was a doctor who Joined MGM College, Jamshedpur in 1968. In 1979 the college was taken over by the State Government, Petitioners prayer was to count his service from 1968 to 1979 for the purposes of retrial benefits. 3. This contempt proceeding was kept pending because the State of Bihar preferred civil review No. 8/99 for the recall of the order on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner before the college was taken over, shall not be counted for the purpose of calculation of retrial dues/benefits. Since similar matters was pending before the Supreme Court, both the contempt petition and the review petition were directed to be listed before this court. 4. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Bihar v. S.A. Hasan and Anr., has decided the issue and held that the employees shall not be entitled to the benefits of the period of service while they were the employees of the erstwhile management of the college. But, the said judgment has been given prospective effect. 5. 4. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Bihar v. S.A. Hasan and Anr., has decided the issue and held that the employees shall not be entitled to the benefits of the period of service while they were the employees of the erstwhile management of the college. But, the said judgment has been given prospective effect. 5. Since the petitioner has already superannuated in 1995 and the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in March, 2002, the said judgment will not apply in the case of the petitioner. Hence, the review petition 8/99 is dismissed. So far the instant contempt proceeding is concerned, this Court gives one more indulgence to the respondent-State to comply with the order and direction passed in the writ petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to bring to the notice of this Court the fact of non-compliance by filing an interlocutory application in the contempt proceeding. For the present this contempt proceeding stands disposed of." 4. Even when the order was not complied with this Court, by order dated 5.8.2003, directed the District Provident Fund Officer and the Treasury Officer, Jamshedpur to appear in person on 12.8.2003 and file their show cause as to why interest on the retiral dues and adequate compensation be not given to the petitioner and the same be not recovered from them. It is only after the aforesaid orders were passed the District Provident Fund Officer and the Treasury Officer appeared in person on 12.8.2003 and undertook to release the amount within twenty four hours. This Court passed the following orders on 12.8.2003 :-- "Pursuant to the order dated 5.8.2003 the District Provident Fund Officer and Treasury Officer, Jamshed-pur have appeared in person. Learned G.P. II submits that the aforesaid officers are ready to release provident fund amout and other dues within 24 hours. Let this matter be placed tomorrow at 2.15 p.m. for passing appropriate order in the contempt matter.By tomorrow provident fund amount and other dues must be released to the petitioner. Provident Fund Officer shall appear in person tomorrow. However, personal appearance of the Treasury Officer is dispensed with for the present." 5. Let this matter be placed tomorrow at 2.15 p.m. for passing appropriate order in the contempt matter.By tomorrow provident fund amount and other dues must be released to the petitioner. Provident Fund Officer shall appear in person tomorrow. However, personal appearance of the Treasury Officer is dispensed with for the present." 5. Today learned G.P. II, in presence of the District Provident Fund Officer, Jamshedpur, produced before me a copy of the authority slip dated 12.8.2003 for payment of provident fund amount of Rs. 6,26,533 (six lacs twenty six thousand five hundred fifty three). 6. From the aforesaid facts it is clear as to how the respondents/Opp. parties have harassed the petitioner and then released the amount. The District Provident Fund Officer when decided to release the amount and gave undertaking to this Court to release the amount within 24 hours, the authority slip was issued by him. This shows the harassing attitude of the opposite parties. 7. In the facts of the case I am of the opinion that the petitioner must be comensated for the sufferings and mental painand agony inasmuch as after 8 years of his retirement he could not get his retiral dues. The respondents are, therefore, directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner. The Chief Secretaries, State of Jharkhand and Bihar are directed to fix the responsibility upon the officers for whose negligence the amount could not be paid and recover the same from them/him. For the present this proceeding is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to make his grievance before the respondents if any further amount is payable to him. Needless to say that the grievance of the petitioner, if any, shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.