IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2529 of 2005 MOST.LALMATIYA Versus PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS ----------- For the petitioner :Ramjiban Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kr. Singh,Advocate ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 08th July, 2008. We heard the counsel for the parties and perused the allegations made in the contempt application and also the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties and also the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner. 2. In the show cause the following statement has been made: “3. That in compliance of the order passed by this Hon‟ble Court, the case of the present petitioner was also taken up and it has been found that the lawful dues payable to the petitioner under the different head of the retiral benefits of the petitioner‟s husband namely Late Jamuna, S/o Sheetal, Retd. Sweeper of Ward no.6A/12A New Capital Circle has been determined and calculated and the same was ordered to be paid vide order contained in memo no.586/Estb. Dated 23.01.2006.(Annexure-“B” of the main show cause petition). 4. That in compliance of the order as contained in Annexure- „B‟, an account payee cheque bearing no.406515 dated - 2 - 23.01.2006 of amounting Rs.70,539/- has also been issued in favour of the petitioner which has been received on 05-07- 2006 by the petitioner herself putting her L.T.I on letter contained in letter no.606/est. dated 27/06/2006 issued to the Legal Advisor, Patna Municipal Corporation regarding the instant contempt case. A true/photocopy of the above mentioned letter contained in letter no.606/est. dated 27.06.2006 is annexed herewith as annexure-C to this supplementary show cause petition in continuation with main show cause petition.” 3. That the amount of Rs.70,539/- has been received by the petitioner is not in dispute. The counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the opposite parties have not yet paid the amount of group Insurance, family pension and difference of salary on revision of pay with effect from 01.01.1996. 3. The counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that the demand of group Insurance by the petitioner is misconceived as the group Insurance Policy had already lapsed. With regard to family pension and the difference of salary on revision of pay, the counsel for the opposite parties submits that requisite formalities have not been completed by the petitioner. 4. Keeping in view the statement of the counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the following order will meet the ends of justice. (i) The formalities that are required for the purposes of family pension shall be completed by the petitioner within four weeks from today. Upon completion of the said formalities, we direct the - 3 - opposite parties to make due payment of family pension to the petitioner immediately thereafter. (ii) The opposite parties are directed to re-examine the issue concerning difference of salary upon revision of pay and make the necessary payment to the petitioner, if found due, within two months from today. (iii) Since group Insurance Policy had lapsed, the petitioner is not entitled to group insurance. 5. MJC is disposed of accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil