IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1407 of 2006 NRIPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Versus MR.NAVEEN VERMA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Anshuman, Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary For the respondents: Mr. A. Amanullah, SC - XVII --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 17th July, 2008 The petitioner’s father Punyadeo Narayan Singh filed a writ petition before this court being CWJC. No.7158 of 2004. The writ petition related to his retiral dues. The said petition was disposed of along with other matters on 5th July, 2004 by the following order: “In all these writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners relates to retiral dues/death –cum-retiral dues, which have not been redressed even after filing of the writ petition. However, having regard to the order dated 19.9.2003 disposing of several writ petitions bearing CWJC. No. 7054 of 2003 and analogous cases by common order, this Court considers it expedient to dispose of these writ petitions also in terms of the directions given in the said order with only modification that two paragraphs affidavit personally sworn by the concerned authority must be filed by 9th August, 2004. Parties will be bound by the said direction and they should proceed in the matter accordingly.” 2 2. It is thus seen that the matter has been disposed of in the light of the decision dated 19.9.2003 given in the writ petition being CWJC. No.7054 of 2003 and other analogous cases. 3. It was observed in the order dated 19.9.2003 that if the petitioner felt aggrieved by the redressal of his grievance, he would be at liberty to file representation with full detail before the authority concerned, which if filed within two weeks, the authority concerned shall consider the same and dispose it of by a reasoned order within two weeks thereafter. 4. The petitioner submits that the claim of full retiral dues by computing the complete length of service with effect from 25th October, 1945 upto 31st January, 1973 has not been considered. 5. The opposite parties have responded and filed a written show cause. Paragraphs – 3,4 & 5 of the written response are relevant which read thus: “That with regard to the statements made in paragraph -1 of the contempt petition it is stated and submitted that the petitioner’s father joined as Assistant teacher in Private school Rajpur High School Chapra on 2.4.1937 after that he joined as Headmaster in Jaitpur High School on 25.10.45 and worked there till 5.11.1957 which was also a private school that time after that he was selected for B.E.S. Class -2 and joined on 6.11.1957 and retired on 31.1.73. That the opposite parties paid all the retiral benefits admissible to him as per law calculating the 3 length of service from 6.11.1957 to 31.1.73. The petitioner’s grievance is to calculate his father’s service length from 25.10.45 to 31.1.73 which is not according to law. That the department letter no.4018 dated 29.11.78 speaks that only those teachers of this type of school will get the retiral benefits who retired after 1.4.78. But the petitioner’s father retired before 1.4.78 on 31.1.73 and not only this but he also left this job and joined as B.E.S. Class -2 on 6.11.57.” 6. In what has been stated by the opposite parties in the written response, we are convinced that the grievance of the petitioner regarding disobedience of the order dated 5th July, 2004 is wholly misconceived and misplaced. 7. No case for contempt is made out. 8. MJC is dismissed, accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/