IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1667 of 2008 1. AMARENDRA PRASAD SON OF LATE SURESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-VIJAYAPURI (RAMJAYPAL NAGAR), GOLA ROAD, NEW BAILEY ROAD, P.S. DANAPUR ( RUPASPUR ), DISTRICT- PATNA.... ..........................................................................................PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF 1. BIHAR 2. SRI ANJANI KR. SINGH, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POSTED AND WORKING AS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. SRI AMIR SUBHANI, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POSTED AND WORKING AS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. SRI NAVIN KUMAR, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PEJTITIONER, POSTED AND WORKING AS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 5. SRI ANIL KUMAR SINHA, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POSTED AND WORKING AS THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA.-14. 6. SHRI JANARDHAN PRASAD SINGH, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POSTED AND WORKING AS THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE,SHEIKHPURA, PATNA-14. 7. SRI I.D.S. DHARIWAL, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POSTED AND WORKING AS THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A. & E ), II, BIRCHAND PATEL PATTH, PATNA............................... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ------------- 3 3-2-2010 Heard the parties. This Court is not persuaded to continue with this contempt matter any further in view of categorical stand of respondent no.3 in his supplementary show cause that all other dues have been paid to the petitioner but his claim for pension and gratuity has been found to be unacceptable in - 2 - view of Govt. policy decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress this court with facts mentioned in the rejoinder petition that even on the basis of his earlier length of service the petitioner was qualified for pension and gratuity. The issue whether petitioner is qualified for pension and gratuity can not be decided appropriately in contempt jurisdiction. Hence, this contempt petition is disposed of with liberty that if so advised the petitioner may peruse his claim for pension and gratuity through appropriate writ petition in accordance with law. This contempt petition is disposed of. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) Naresh