Order Heard Sri Manish Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rishiraj Sinha, learned Govt. Pleader No. 19, who appears on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 9 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 10 i.e. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 2. While invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed . for directing the Respondents to make payment of all the retiral dues. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired with effect from 31.7.2001 as Junior Engineer from the office of Respondent No. 6/ Executive Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Division No.1, Madhubani. Despite the fact that the petitioner retired long back in the year 2001, no retiraldues of the petitioner has been cleared till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the relief sought for in the present writ petition, the petitioner was earlier constrained to file a writ petition in the year 2006 vide C.W.J.C. No. 5368 of 2006, which was subsequently referred to Lok Adalat held at the High Court, Patna and finally a consent award was prepared on 1.5.2010. The copy of the award has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It would be appropriate to quote the award prepared by the Lok Adalat, which is as follows:- "The dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat and the parties having compromised/settled the case/matter, the following award is passed in terms of the settlement:- The petitioner superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government with effect from 31.7.2001, while posted as a Junior Engineer, from the office of the Executive Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Division No.1, Madhubani. He complains that no part of his post-retirement benefits, not even the proceeds of the general provident fund, have been paid to him. Learned counsel for the parties jointly agree that the entire admitted dues shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. After adjustment of the dues against the petitioner, if not already adjusted. The petitioner shall be entitled to statutory interest on the proceeds of the general provident fund from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Respondent No. 7 (Directo, Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Baile) Road, Patna) shall ensure payment of proceeds of general provident fund in time. After adjustment of the dues against the petitioner, if not already adjusted. The petitioner shall be entitled to statutory interest on the proceeds of the general provident fund from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Respondent No. 7 (Directo, Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Baile) Road, Patna) shall ensure payment of proceeds of general provident fund in time. Respondent No. 2 (Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, patna) shall ensure implementation of remaining terms of the compromise in time. The parties are informed that the court fee, if any, paid by any of them shall be refunded." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite award was prepared in terms of settlement between the parties, the same has not been given effect to by the authorities concerned and, accordingly, the petitioner was again constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. . 4. Sri Rishiraj Sinha, learned Government Pleader No. 19 has raised objection on the point of maintainability of the writ petition. It was submitted by Sri Sinha that for the same relief, second writ is not maintainable and, as such, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. He pointed out that it is not clear from the award i.e. Annexure-2 to the writ petition, as to whether the award has been prepared under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under the Legal Services Authorities Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the submission/objection raised by the learned counsel for the State. It was submitted that the fact remains that the writ petition was referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement of the matter and thereafter Lok Adalat held at Patna High Court had prepared an award. From the award, it is evident that the award was prepared on compromise. 6. Prima facie, the Court is of the opinion that the award was not prepared under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Had it been a case of an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court would have proceeded under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for non-compliance of the order. Since it was an award, the Court is of the opinion that direction can be issued to the authorities concerned to execute the award. Accordingly, Respondents, particularly Respondent Nos. Since it was an award, the Court is of the opinion that direction can be issued to the authorities concerned to execute the award. Accordingly, Respondents, particularly Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are directed to take all steps in the light of award dated 1.5.2010 (Annexure-2 to the petition), so that all the retiral dues of the petitioner must be settled in compliance with the award within a period of two months from the date of' receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is expected that after issuance of sanction from the State Authority, Respondent NO.10/Accountant General, Bihar, Patna will take all steps for issuance of authorization within a- period of one month from the date of receipt of sanction by the State Authority. Accordingly, they are directed to execute the award as indicated above. 7. The writ petition stands allowed.