JUDGMENT : Mr. Randhir Kumar, the leanred Amicus has referred to the judgment in “Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Others” reported in (2013) 11 SCC 404 . 2. In “Priya Gupta” case the Supreme Court has observed as under: “8. Bona fide” is an expression which has to be examined in the context of a given case. It cannot be understood in the abstract. The attendant circumstances, behaviour of the contemnor and the remorse or regret on his part are some of the relevant considerations which would weigh with the Court in deciding such an issue. Where, persistently, a person has attempted to overreach the process of Court and has persisted with the illegal act done in wilful violation to the orders of the Court, it will be difficult for the Court to accept unconditional apology even if it is made at the threshold of the proceedings. It is not necessary for us to examine in any greater detail the factual matrix of the case since the disobedience, manipulation of procedure and violation of the schedule prescribed under the orders of the Court is an admitted position. All that we have to examine is whether the apology tendered is bona fide when examined in the light of the attendant circumstances and whether it will be in the interest of justice to accept the same.” 3. The learned Amicus submits that from the materials on record it appears that full and final payment of the post-retiral benefits have not been made to the petitioners. 4. Mr. Rupesh Singh, the learned counsel for contemnor-JMADA submits that the balance amount of post-retiral benefits are being paid to the writ petitioners in installments in terms of the policy and decision taken by JMADA. 5. In view of the statement made at Bar on behalf of the contemnors, the proceeding in this contempt case is closed. 6. The learned Amicus shall be paid his fee as indicated in the order dated 10.01.2020.