IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2989 of 2006 GIRENDRA NARAIN ROY, son of Late Surya Narain Roy, resident of Mohalla-Purani Sahar, Daudnagar, Police Station-Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Sri Birendra Bahadur Pandey, District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 3. The Municipal Commissioners of Daudnagar Municipality, Police Station Daudnagar, District-Aurangabad, through its Executive Officer namely Sri Manoj Kumar Ranjan. 4. Sri Manoj Kumar Ranjan, Son of not known, Executive Officer, Daudnagar Municipality, now know as Daudnagar Nagar Panchayat, Police Station- Daudnagar, District-Aurangabad. ----------- 14 30/3/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also counsel for the Municipality. The petitioner alleges violation of order of this Court dated 17.5.2004, wherein according to him directions were issued for settlement of his post retirement benefit including monthly pension. Grievance of the petitioner is that till date his pension has not been finalized and therefore order of this Court has not been complied. The Opposite parties have filed their show cause reply, wherein a categorical stand has been taken that authorities of the Municipality cannot pay the pension from their funds because such payment has to be made from the funds of the State Government. In this context it has also been pointed out that the issue with regard to payment of pension to all the municipal employees in the State of Bihar is pending consideration before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 960 of 2007 and as such the 2 Municipality cannot take any decision for making payment of monthly pension to the petitioner. The first and foremost question is that as to whether this Court had held the petitioner entitled for payment of monthly pension and issued a direction for such payment. It is very clear from the order of this Court dated 17.5.2004 that a limited direction was given to the respondent authorities to dispose of the claim of retirement benefits in terms of judgment in the case of Mostt. Rukmini Devi Vs. State Bihar reported in 1996(2) PLJR 348 wherein following directions were given:- “Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, as also considering the large number of pendency of cases in regard to retirement benefit matters in this Court, I am constrained to pass a general order that the concerned government servants or their legal heirs and representatives should raise their claims afresh by filing representation, in which they should give full details of their claim and also full address for communication henceforth before the concerned Heads of Department, who shall grant a receipt in token thereof. The Heads of the respective Departments shall get the entire claim filed before him examined through various concerned authorities including Director, Provident Fund/ District Provident Fund Officers and finally dispose them of by a reasoned order dealing with each and every claim separately and shall also issue necessary sanction order/ authority slip for payment of admitted dues with statutory interest as well as the interest as per various Government circulars/ decisions taken in that regard within a period of two months of the receipt of the claim. It is made clear that the main responsibility for payment of all the admitted dues of the concerned Government servant shall be of the Heads of the concerned Departments. In case of any dispute, in regard to any of the claims, they shall assign reasons for not accepting the same and shall communicate to the concerned government servant/ person within the aforesaid time. If any of the 3 formalities, such as filing of the indemnity bond or succession certificates etc. are to be completed by the claimant then they must be communicated much before the expiry of said period, so that the claimant may meet the said requirement and the delay in payment of the legitimate dues is avoided. The Accountant General, Bihar, who is represented by Mrs. Renuka Sharma, learned Standing Counsel is directed to issue necessary authority slip within one month of the receipt of the sanction order from the concerned authority in the State Government. It is further made clear that non- compliance of any part of the aforesaid directions by any of the concerned authorities would constitute contempt of this Court and will be seriously viewed. This Court may also consider to award heavy penal interest and costs besides imposition of punishment in the contempt proceeding against the concerned Heads of Departments/ Accountant General, Bihar which shall be realized from their pocket.” Admittedly, in case of Rukmini Devi (supra) also there was no direction for payment of pension if the person was not even entitled for such pension. As a matter of fact in terms of the aforementioned order dated 17.5.2004 the opposite parties had also complied the order by passing a reasoned order on 24.7.2004 contained in Annexure-3 wherein the admitted claim of retirement benefit of the petitioner was settled and the pension was found not payable to him. From reading of the aforementioned order it would be clear that the authorities had held the petitioner to be not entitled for grant of pension as the petitioner had never opted for payment of pension in the prescribed period. In that view of the matter, continuation of this contempt proceeding itself would be a wasteful exercise. The plea of the petitioner that some one else in municipality was paid 4 pension, cannot be a ground for initiating a proceeding for contempt. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the order dated 9.3.2005 in C.W.J.C. NO.13045 of 2001 for the purpose of proving that there is contempt by the authorities by violating the order dated 17.5.2004 in C.W.J.C. no.6075 of 2004 has to be only noted for its being rejected. If the petitioner has not succeeded in demonstrating that he will be entitled for pension no contempt would lie on the reasons given in the order dated 24.7.2004. Such order having been passed in terms of directions in Rukmini Devi's case (supra), there would be no contempt as the order of this Court was confined and has been complied. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court in fact had also decided this fact in the order dated 16.11.2009 in this very case has to be again noted for its being rejected. By the said order the issue as with regard to apportionment of the retirement benefit in the Municipality and the State Government was addressed without any final conclusion, inasmuch as, the matter was adjourned awaiting the result of L.P.A. No.960 of 2007. His further reliance on the order dated 15.12.2009 suggesting that the question of adminisibility of pension of the petitioner has been adjudicated in this very proceeding is also wholly incorrect, inasmuch as, by that order also the Municipality was directed to file a supplementary show cause clearly bringing out the record of payment of pension. Such interim order therefore also can not amount to conclusive 5 determination of right of the petitioner to receive monthly pension. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)