IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1606 of 2007 BIHAR RAJYA JAIL CHATURTH VARGIYA KAMGAR UNION & ANR . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 6/ 20/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State as also for the State of Jharkhand. The surviving controversy now relates to the grant of dearness allowance on the minimum time scale of pay allowed by the Writ Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that earlier dearness allowance was granted on the minimum time scale of pay in compliance of the order of the Writ Court. Subsequently, the dearness allowance has been withdrawn by a fresh order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dearness allowance was an inherent part of the minimum time scale of pay and therefore there was no justification for withdrawing it after having released it earlier. There is no occasion for the Court in the contempt proceeding to decide the larger issue whether dearness allowance shall be payable on a minimum time pay scale granted to an employee and what was the difference between a regular scale and a minimum time scale of pay. There was no direction of the Writ Court to pay the dearness allowance. 2 Suffice it to notice that on the own interpretation of the petitioner if dearness allowance was a part of the minimum time scale of pay, the opposite parties had complied the order. If he is of the opinion that it was wrongly withdrawn subsequently, the remedy, if any, shall lie in a writ petition only and not in the contempt jurisdiction. If the petitioner has not challenged the action of the State of Bihar in having withdrawn the benefit subsequently, the Court finds it very difficult to proceed in the contempt jurisdiction against the State of Jharkhand on that basis. The contempt proceedings stand dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)