An appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court is not maintainable against an order that does not conclude the contempt proceeding and does not exercise the jurisdiction to punish for contempt.

S. K. Singh, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna high Court against the order dated 11.7.95 passed by a learned Single judge in an application filed under article 215 or the Constitution of india bearing M. J. C. No.933/94.

2. Respondent No.1 in the instant appeal filed a writ-application being C. W. J. C. No.11754792 for issuance of a writ, order/direction commanding the res-pondents to the writ application for refund of the dearness allowance deducted from the salaries of the employees from 1.1.1979 to 28.2.1990, for payment of Group saving General Lire Insurance Police monthly premium from 1990, the group Gratuity premium of L. I. C. from 1990, the interim relief from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1988, the enhanced allowance of house rent from 1.12.1986 instead of 30.6.92 and further arrears of salary on the basis of 5th Pay Revision from 1.3.1989 along with dearness allowance from July, 1991.

3. The aforesaid writ application was contested by the Respondent-Corporation by filing a counter-affidavit on behalf of the Chairman as well as the Managing Director of the corporation. No. Counter-Affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of bihar and/or Agriculture Production commissioner or the Finance Commissioner, who were Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 respectively in the said writ application inspite of sufficient opportunity granted by the Court and their being represented through counsel.

4. In the return filed on behalf of the Corporation, the claims regarding payment of salary up-to-date, Deferred dearness allowance from 1.3.79 to 28.2.90 and group saving linked insurance from 1990 onwards were not disputed. Similarly, with regard to other claims viz enhanced house-rent allowance, dearness allowance and interim relief were also not disputed. The Corporation disputed only with regard to the date of implementation. It was also not disputed that no salary had been paid right from November, 1992 to the employees of the Corporation.

5. The only stand taken by the corporation for not discharging its legal duty and obligation by making payment of the lawful dues to the employees of the Corporation was non-availability of funds.

6. It was submitted on behalf of the Corporation that the Corporation had been taking all possible steps to apprise the State Government with regard to its financial condition and for grant of fund but till today no fund could be made available by the State government and, as such, the corporation is not in a position to make payment of the aforesaid dues to its employees.

7. The learned single Judge by order dated 19.4.1994 allowed the aforesaid writ application and directed the State of Bihar, Agriculture production Commissioner and the finance Commissioner, Respondent no. s 1, 2 and 5 respectively to the said writ application to forthwith release the fund, if there is any liability of the state for the same to the Corporation so that lawful dues payable to the employees of the Corporation could be made. Further this Court directed the chairman and the Managing Director of the Corporation, respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the said writ application to pay all the lawful dues payable to the corporation within one month from the date of judgment/order.

8. The writ petitioners, thereafter, filed a representation along with a copy of the aforesaid judgment and order for necessary compliance. When no action was taken by the respondent-State of Bihar and its officers, the writ petitioners again moved this Court by filing an application under Article 215 of the constitution of India for initiating a proceeding for contempt against the opposite parties for disobedience of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ application bearing c. W. J. C. No.11754/92, which was registered as M. J. C. No.933 of 1994.

9. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the petitioners of the said contempt application, issued notices to the opposite parties of the said contempt