IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.402 of 2008 Mostt. Indu Devi, wife of Late Jawahar Lal Sah, resident of village- Usari Bazar, P.S. Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Mr. Gautam Guha, The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Abhay Kumar- Incharge, The District Accountant Officer, Gopalganj 5. Sri Nitish Chandra Mandal, The District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj 6. Sri Abhay Kumar, The Provident Fund Officer, Gopalganj 7. Sri Amitabh Mishra, The District Treasury Officer,Gopalganj ----------- 4. 7.10.2009 In the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties, it is stated that the order under contempt has been complied and the entire amount due to the petitioner has been paid to him as directed in the order dated 23.7.2007 under contempt. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance that the difference of salary for 27 months has wrongly been taken as Rs. 1272/- instead of Rs. 1296/- and also regarding applicable rate of interest @ 12.5% per annum prior to the year 2000. In the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of opposite party no. 5, it is stated that the chart of the concerned teachers has been prepared in which for different teachers the different amounts regarding difference of pay for the period 1.1.1971 to 31.3.1973 is shown and the paid amounts varies from teacher to teacher and with respect to the husband of the petitioner it was Rs. 1272/-. In view of the aforesaid stand, it cannot be said that there is arithmetical error or any arbitrariness in taking the said amount as 2 difference of pay so far as the petitioner’s husband is concerned. With regard to calculation of rate of interest, it is stated that the same has been done as per the Provident Fund Rules. It is also pointed out that the question of payment of higher rate of interest of 12.5 per cent would only arise if the contribution made by the concerned employee was more than 12.5 per cent in a particular year of the salary, etc. for the year in question as laid down in memo no. 6779 dated 9.8.1988 and accordingly the calculations have been correctly made. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any material on the record to show that the petitioner is entitled to the higher rate of interest. In the above circumstances, no case for proceeding under the contempt jurisdiction is made out. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)