IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2802 of 2006 RAJ KESHWAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr., Adv. For the Opposite parties : Mr. Banwari Sharma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Anant Kr., J.C. to S.C.XI ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 17th July, 2008. For the claim of his retiral dues the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 15964 of 2004). 2. The said writ petition has been disposed of on 29th November, 2005 by the following order: - “In view of submissions of learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 4 this writ application is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall file representation alongwith a copy of this order before the concerned authorities and respondent nos. 2 to 4 shall take all such steps so as to make payment of such dues found legally admissible by respondent nos. 2 to 4 to the petitioner within two months from the date of filing of representation by the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner alleges that the said order remains not fully complied with. 4. On behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 a written response has been filed. Paragraph 4, 5, 6 and 7 thereof read thus: - - 2 - “4.That as per the order of this Hon’ble court, the amount regarding retiral dues, having been paid to the petitioner, and now only difference of pay as per 4th revision of pay which comes to Rs. 37043 as due to the petitioner which is to be paid shortly as the cheque has already been prepared and the petitioner has also been informed by letter vide Memo no.13 dated 4.1.2007. 5. That as to group insurance amount, on calculation Rs. 11422.00 being due, the insurance company sent cheque, which the S.B.I. did not accept and demanded bank draft for which the concerned Insurance company has been asked to sent draft. It is expected that the draft will be sent shortly and as soon as the same will be received the payment will also be paid to the petitioner within a short time. 6. That the old D.A. pass book account of the petitioner is being calculated and that amount will shortly be sorted out and paid to the petitioner. 7. That now petitioner has been paid all other admissible retiral benefits, which is clear from the detailed chart dated 31.12.2006.” 5. In view thereof, we are satisfied that no case of contempt is made out. 6. M.J.C. is accordingly rejected. 7. If there is any mistake in the calculation or some amount still remains unpaid, the petitioner may make representation to the concerned authority, who will consider the same in accordance with law. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-