IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.140 of 2003 GOPAL RAM Versus SHYAM SUNDAR PRASAD & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Singh, Adv. For the Respondent : M/s Lalit Kishore, AAG 3 R.K. Priyadarshy, Adv. --------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 7th July, 2008. We heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the allegations made in the contempt petition as well as the subsequent pleadings including the counter affidavit, rejoinder and supplementary counter affidavit. 2. In paragraphs 2 to 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 9.3.2006, the following statements have been made: “ 2. That it is stated that the claims made in the Rejoinder petition of the petitioner are not tenable except the statutory interest on provident fund in view of the fact that after retirement on 31.12.2001 as Jamadar, a sum of Rs.1,75,192.00 (Rupees one lac seventy five thousand one hundred ninety two) has been paid to him against retiral dues including pension upto August 2005 and the details of aforesaid payment was mentioned in the previous show cause. 3. That as regards statutory interest on Provident - 2 - Fund as claimed in para 3 (IV) of the Rejoinder petition it is stated that a sum of Rs.10,098.00 (Rs. Ten Thousand Ninety Eight) was calculated against interest on Provident Fund and accordingly a cheque for Rs.10,098.00 (Ten Thousand Ninety Eight) was issued in the name of the petitioner vide cheque no. BB 043213 dated 10.2.2006 which shall be produced to the Hon’ble Court during hearing of the case and thereafter it may be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. That as regards the claim of leave encashment for 240 days, it is stated that it is not tenable in view of the fact that as per leave account of the petitioner he has only 176 days unutilized leave against which the payment has been made previously which fact has been admitted by the petitioner. 5. That it is stated that the petitioner has been rightly paid previously a sum of Rs.33,676.00 (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Six) against his Gratuity for 16 ½ months salary with 92% D.A. thereon and no rule provide to pay the D.A. on the rate claimed by the petitioner. It is made clear that like other employees of the Corporation the petitioner is being paid D.A. at the rate of 295% on Pension but no employee of the Corporation has been paid more than 92% D.A. on Gratuity so far. 6. That it is stated that the last salary drawn by the petitioner was Rs.1,065.00 average of which comes to Rs.1063.00 and accordingly the Pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.531.00 excluding D.A. pursuant to the provisions of Rule of Patna Municipal Corporation Officers and Servants Pension Rules, 1986 and accordingly the petitioner is entitled for Pension in future - 3 - which shall be paid to him as per rule 39 of the said Pension Rules.” 3. We accept this statement. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that now the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of two items namely, (i) that the amount of group insurance has not been paid and (ii) that the difference of payment as per revision of pay by 5th Pay Committee has not been made. 5. With regard to the amount of group insurance, the case of the Corporation, as is reflected from the supplementary counter affidavit, is that the said amount has not been received from L.I.C. of India. The Corporation has not disowned the payment of group insurance but has submitted that no sooner the said amount is received from the L.I.C. of India, it would be paid. More than two years have passed since the supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the Corporation on 9.3.2006. If the L.I.C. of India has not released the group insurance amount, the Chief Executive Officer, Gaya Municipal Corporation is directed to take appropriate steps for early release of the group insurance amount by L.I.C. of India and make payment to the petitioner. As regards the difference of pay upon revision of pay scale by the 5th Pay Committee, Gaya Municipal Corporation has said that the said amount has not been released by the government. Obviously, the said amount can be paid to the petitioner after it is released by the government. 6. We, thus, dispose of this contempt petition by the - 4 - following order:- (i) Within two weeks of the release of the group insurance amount by the L.I.C. of India, the Chief Executive Officer, Gaya Municipal Corporation shall make payment of the group insurance to the petitioner. (ii) As regards difference of pay upon revision of pay in view of 5th Pay Committee, it is directed that within two weeks of the release of the amount by the Government, the amount due to the petitioner towards difference of pay shall be paid. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Anil/