JUDGMENT V.K. Shukla, J. The petition by the State is from a judgment of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal dated 11 October 2013. 2. The first respondent was posted as Executive Engineer in the Provincial Division of the Public Works Department at District Mau. In a contempt petition filed by one Akshaya Kumar Rai (Contempt Petition No.1970 of 2007) against the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, the grievance was that though the employee concerned had filed a writ petition in which an order was passed on 10 October 2006 directing the Chief Engineer to pay the retiral dues after making necessary deductions commensurate with an order passed in certain disciplinary proceedings for the recovery of an amount of Rs.28,036/-, the direction had not been complied with. When the contempt petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, an order was passed on 29 January 2010, awarding costs of Rs.50,000/- for the delay in the payment and the harassment caused. However, the Principal Secretary was permitted to recover the costs as well as the interest to be awarded from the officers, who were responsible for the lapse. Thereafter a notice to show cause was issued to the first respondent and eventually, an order of punishment was passed on 30 August 2010 for the recovery of Rs.22,831/- from his salary. 3. The order of punishment was assailed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that no enquiry was made by the State in fixing the responsibility on the officials and officers who are all involved in the process as their conduct has resulted in the delay in the payment of retiral dues of the employee. The Tribunal has, in the circumstances, set aside the order of recovery but, has left it open to the State to hold a fresh enquiry by fixing responsibility on the officials and officers responsible for the lapse which was noticed in the order of the learned Single Judge on the contempt petition. 4. The order of the Principal Secretary dated 30 August 2010, by which the recovery of Rs.22,831/- was ordered from the first respondent, indicates that the only reason for fixing responsibility on the first respondent was that he was the Executive Engineer and his subordinates had not drawn his attention to the order of the Court, which would indicate an absence of administrative control on his part. The Principal Secretary, simply divided the costs, which were liable to be paid among the Executive Engineers, who had held the position at the relevant point in time in proportion to the duration in office. 5. In our opinion, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that a proper enquiry ought to have been held since all the officials and officers involved including the Clerks should have taken steps and having failed to do so, should have been subjected to an order of recovery after due enquiry. This exercise was evidently not done by the Principal Secretary. Hence, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted particularly, since the Tribunal has left it open to the State to fix responsibility on the erring officials and officers. Hence, we find no merit in the petition. However, the period, which was fixed by the Tribunal for the conclusion of the fresh enquiry, is extended by further period of four months from today. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.