JUDGMENT : 1. Present contempt application is listed before the Full Bench pursuant to the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 28.04.2016. 1.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present contempt petition has been preferred by the applicant-original writ petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12648 of 2012. It appears from the order passed by the learned Single Judge that vide order dated 19.07.2012 said writ application was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to ensure that the G.P.F. amount with up-to-date statutory interest be paid to the original writ-petitioner along with other heirs of his deceased wife. However, thereafter as the statutory interest was not paid, original writ-petitioner has preferred the present contempt petition. However, when the present contempt petition was heard by the learned Single Judge, in between there was an order passed by the Full Bench in the case of Ram Gulam Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2015 (1) PLJR 568 by which a view is taken that the State Government is under no obligation to pay interest over the outstanding amount of the Provident Fund even after the expiry of the period of six months. However, the learned Single Judge passed the order dated 16.09.2015 observing that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Gulam (supra) needs to be reconsidered on account of non-consideration of the statutory provisions as contained in the Bihar Treasury Code, particularly so far as it relates to the case of Non-gazetted Government servants and other Government servants who died while still in service. Therefore, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench of this Court. That thereafter, by order dated 28.04.2016 the Division Bench has directed to list the matter before a Full Bench and that is how the present application is listed before the Full Bench. 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that reference to the Full Bench itself is not maintainable. That thereafter, by order dated 28.04.2016 the Division Bench has directed to list the matter before a Full Bench and that is how the present application is listed before the Full Bench. 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that reference to the Full Bench itself is not maintainable. Apart from the fact that no specific question is framed and thereafter referred to the Full Bench, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge could not have referred the matter to the Division Bench and thereafter the Division Bench ought not to have referred the matter to the Full Bench. The learned Single Judge as such was deciding the contempt matter in which the noncompliance of the order passed in the writ petition has been alleged. There was no dispute pending before the learned Single Judge on merits whether a statutory interest on the delayed payment of the Provident Fund is required to be paid or not. The learned Single Judge was required to consider whether the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12648 of 2012 has been complied with or not. 2.1. Even otherwise and assuming that such a dispute on merits was before the learned Single Judge in that case also as such the learned Single Judge was bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench. Learned Single Judge could not have stated that the order passed by the Full Bench needs reconsideration. Even if the learned Single Judge was not in agreement with the view expressed in the case of Ram Gulam (supra), as a Single Judge, he was bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench. It is only in a case where the Bench of coordinate jurisdiction differs with another decision of the Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction in that case the matter is required to be referred to the larger Bench for resolution of the issue. As observed hereinabove, as such the learned Single Judge is bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench even if he does not agree. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has doubted the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench, which is not permissible. As observed hereinabove, as such the learned Single Judge is bound to follow the decision of the Full Bench even if he does not agree. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has doubted the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench, which is not permissible. Judicial decorum is required to be maintained and the judicial decorum requires that the Single Judge is bound to follow the decision of at least the Full Bench and even the Division Bench judgment unless an exceptional case is made out that in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court he can refer the matter to the Division Bench and thereafter by the Division Bench to the Full Bench and thereafter the Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction i.e. Full Bench can refer the matter to the larger Bench. 3. In view of the above, the reference to the Full Bench itself is bad. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that as such no question is framed and referred to the Full Bench for its decision. Under the circumstances, we remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge to consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits.