IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2454 of 2003 SOHMATI DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Jay Shankar & Rajeev Kr. Singh For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 7th July, 2008. While disposing of writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 6000 of 2000) in the order dated 10.12.2002, the following directive came to be issued: “In this view of the matter, respondent authorities are directed to calculate the remuneration of the deceased husband of the petitioner till 16th August, 1999 and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that retrial dues of the husband of the petitioner will be given to the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of this order.” 2. According to the petitioner, the said order was not complied with by the respondents necessitating filing of the contempt petition. 3. Respondent no. 2 has shown cause to the notice and in paragraph 2, the following statement has been made : “That in compliance of the orders of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner has been paid the balance amount of salary for the period 01.08.1999 to 16.08.1999 amounting to a sum of Rs.4032.50 by cheque no. 745147 dated 19.09.2003 as also the entire post retirement - 2 - benefits. In this regard the details of the amount paid are as follows : (i) G.S.S. - A sum of Rs.22,893/- has been paid by Cheque No. 156382 dated 8.2.2002. (ii) Leave Encashment – A sum of Rs.16,288.00 has been paid by cheque no.156378 dated 08.02.2002 (iii) G. P.F. – A sum of Rs.93,291.00 has been paid by cheque no. 847038 dated 07.03.2000. (iv) Gratuity - A sum of Rs.31,005.00 has been paid by cheque no. 809351 dated 15.04.2000. Further the balance amount on account of difference of DCRG in old scale amounting to a sum of Rs.34,463.00 has been paid by cheque no. 559527 dated 17.05.2005. (v) Commuted value of pension: A sum of Rs.24,586.00 has been paid by cheque no.862688 dated 16.07.2001. (vi) The pension was being paid regularly and thereafter family pension has also been paid regularly. It is stated that the pension of Late Deolal Singh has been fixed at Rs.991.00 per month w.e.f. 17.08.1999 in the pre-revised scale of pay and the same has been raised to Rs.3130.00 per month w.e.f. 17.08.1999 in the revised scale of pay. The family pension has been revised from Rs.1396.00 to Rs.3130.00 w.e.f. 30.07.2001 for the period upto 16.08.2004 whereafter the same has been fixed at Rs.1998.00 per month plus D.A. as admissible. Therefore, the difference of pension in old scale w.e.f. 17.08.1999 to 29.07.2001 amounting to a sum of Rs.16,389.00 along with the difference of pension w.e.f. 17.08.1999 to 16.08.2005 and family pension from 01.05.2001 to 31.03.2005 amounting to a sum of Rs.1,07,553.00 has been paid vide cheque no. 559527 dated 17.05.2005. (vii) The arrear of increment for the period 01.08.1999 to 16.08.1999 amounting to a sum of Rs.78.00 has also been paid. It may also be relevant to point out here that the amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner till July 1999 on the head of GSS and G.P.F. has also been paid. “ 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the aforesaid payment has been made and interest has also been paid but that is only upto the year 1994 and not upto the year 1999. - 3 - 5. We are afraid, the question of calculation cannot be gone into in the contempt jurisdiction of this Court; particularly when the payment towards salary, D.A., G.P.F., gratuity, leave encashment and value of commutation seems to have been made. 6. We are, thus, satisfied that nothing further needs to be done in this contempt application. However, if there is any deficiency in payment of interest, we grant liberty to the petitioner to bring this fact especially to the notice of respondent no. 2. We further observe that respondent no. 2 shall have a re-look in the matter and if any payment towards interest is found to be due, that may be made to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this M.J.C. stands disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-