IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1582 of 2006 RUDRA NAND CHOUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 11. 3.8.2009 It appears from the rival contention of the parties that according to the Bank the entire amount that remains payable to the petitioner is under the head of arrears of difference of pay amounting to Rs. 1,87,096/- whereas the petitioner claims that there are other dues also including the wrongful deduction made whereas he had repaid the entire loan taken under the contributory provident fund. Such issue regarding repayment of loan or not cannot be considered under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. With regard to the arrears of difference of pay it is stated in the supplementary show cause that the same is being paid to the retired employees in a chronological order as per the chronological list which is annexed as Annexure-E to the show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his reply to the supplementary show cause has failed to cite a single instance where the amounts have been paid without following the chronological order. In the above circumstances, the contempt application is dismissed. The petitioner shall have the liberty to file a representation before the authorities of the Land - 2 - Development Bank with respect to his remaining claims, if any, giving details of calculation on his behalf which shall be considered and disposed of by the opposite party in accordance with law by a reasoned order within a period of two months from the filing of the representation. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)