Order Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there is willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court dated 20th of February. 2008. in Writ Petition(S) No. 2841 of 2007. (Annexure-1) and also submitted that no decision has been taken upon the representation and the legally payable amount has yet been paid. 2. I have heard' learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who has submitted that looking to the affidavit filed by the respondents, at Annexure-C. it appears that there is a decision taken upon, representation preferred by the petitioner and legally payable amount has already been paid, as stated in the order, at Annexure-C, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. The following are the amounts paid by the respondents under the different headings to the petitioner:- Sr. No. Benefit Amount Date of Redressal 1. G.P.F. 54,918/- 3.3.2007 2. L.I.C. 42,336/ 18.6.2007 3. Arrears of Salary from January 1999 to 7.5.1999 19,206/- 25.8.2009 4. Arrears of revised pay till 14.11.2000 11,878/- 25.8.2009 5. Arrears of D.A. 446/- 25.8.2009 6. Arrears of D.A. from 16.11.2000 to April 2001 614/- 25.8.2009 7. Arrears of Dress Allow for the Year, 2002 . 477/- 25.8.2009 8. Arrears of Salary from 2427/- 25.8.2009 1.5.2001 to 15.1.2001 Total (3+4+5+6+7+8) 35048/- 25.8.2009 3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that there is some delay caused in passing the impugned order for which an unconditional apology has also been tendered in the show cause, especially, in Paragraphs No. 16 and 19 of the show cause of the Opposite Party No.4. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, at Annexture-C to the counter-affidavit and looking to. the aforesaid payment already made, which is legally payable amount, there is no disobedience of the order passed by this Court, much less, a willful disobedience by the respondents, though there is a delay in passing the order, but, looking to the averments made in the counter-affidavit, there is no willful disobedience. 5. It has already been directed, in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 184 of 2008, dated 2nd of September. 5. It has already been directed, in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 184 of 2008, dated 2nd of September. 2009, that whenever this Court is giving any direction to the State or any party, to be complied with, within stipulated time, it shall be the duty of the concerned officer of the State or the party to whom direction is given by the Court that all care must be taken for the compliance of the order such as:- (i) that the order should be complied with, within the time limit granted by the Court; or (ii) to obtain an order for extension of time to carry out the direction given by the Court by preferring an application before the concerned Court, if the time granted by the Court is not sufficient, as per the opinion of the State or as per the opinion of the party to whom direction is given by the Court; or . (iii) to obtain stay order from higher forum, against the order giving direction, if in the opinion of the State or the party to whom the direction is given by the Court, the order of the Court cannot be complied with; or (iv) if the State or the party to whom direction is given by the Court, has missed step Nos. (i), (ii) & (iii), at least, an affidavit should be filed in the contempt matter alongwith a separate undertaking that within what, least possible time, the order can be complied with. 6. These directions have also been issued in the aforesaid order, copy whereof has also been given to the Chief Secretary of the State for its circulation so that in a vertical hierarchy of the officers it may be circulated and the order passed by this Court may be complied with scrupulously. 7. In view of the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents and also looking to the order at Annexure-C. and looking to the aforesaid order, this Contempt Application is hereby, disposed of as dismissed.