IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3360 of 2009 SUKHDEO RAI S/O LATE RAUDI RAI VILL.- BASBITTI, P.O.- BASBITTI, P.S.- SUPAUL, DISTT.- SUPAUL Versus 1. SRI AJAY NAYAK, THE COMMISSIONER WATER RESOURCES OF DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. SRI HAMID ANSARI, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BARRAGE CIRCLE, BIRPUR AT/PO BIRPUR, P.S.- BIRPUR, DISTT.- SUPAUL 3. SRI SATISH KUMAR, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER SAHARSA CIRCLE AT/PO/PS- SAHARSA, DISTT.- SAHARSA 4. SRI LAKSHMAN RAM, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER DESIGN CIRCLE, PURNEA 5. INDRAJIT SAXENA, CHIEF ENGINEER, BIRPUR EAST EMBANKMENT DIVISION-II, BIRPUR AT/PO/PS BIRPUR, DISTT.- SUPAUL 6. SRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR PASWAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DESIGN DIVISION NO.-I, PURNEA, AT/PO/PS- PURNIA DISTT.- PURNEA 7. PRAKASH CHANDRA DAS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DESIGN DIVISION NO.-II, BIRPUR, PO/PS- PURNIA, DISTT.- PURNEA 8. PRAKASH CHANDRA DAS, TREASURY OFFICER SUPAUL 9. SRI SAHJA NAND SINGH, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHIEF WORK DIVISION, BIRPUR, PO/PS- BIRPUR, DISTT.- SUPAUL 10. SUBHASH KUMAR VERMA, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EAST KOSHI CANAL DIVISION, BIRPUR, PO/PS- BIRPUR, DISTT.- SUPAUL 11. SRI SANJAY KUMAR, TREASURY OFFICER AT/PO/PS SUPAUL, DISTT.- SUPAUL 12. SRI SARYUG PASWAN, DISTRICT G.P.F. OFFICER SAHARSA 13. S.K. DHARIWAL, ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 14. SRI SANJAY BISHWAS, DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER AT/PO/PS, DISTRICT - SUPAUL ----------- 5 07.07.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the Accountant General. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the departmental has considered the entitlements of the petitioner as raised in the representation and the same has been disposed of by passing a reasoned order as contained in Annexure-4 read with Annexure-A to the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party no.10. It is further submitted that the payment of interest was equally considered and separate order was passed as contained in Annexure-C to the said show cause and the admissible - 2 - interest has been sanctioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest has not been calculated correctly. The petitioner was entitled to interest from the date when the amount towards the retiral dues were found payable and as such the authorities should have calculated the interest from the said date and in other words the order of the Court has not been complied with. Considering the above, since the representation of the petitioner for payment of retiral dues have been considered and disposed of by reasoned order and the necessary entitlements have been sanctioned, and as such, no case for contempt is made out. However since the petitioner claims that the calculations are not correctly made and interest has not been made as required under the rules and as such the authorities shall consider the same. In view of the above, this contempt application need not proceed further and the same accordingly stands disposed of. However, it will be open for the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the concerned authority with regard to any discrepancy in the above or the entitlements within a period of four weeks from today. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)