IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2477 of 2010 BAIJNATH RAM Versus SRI DEEPAK PANWAR, MANAGING DI ----------- 6 9-3-2011 Heard the parties. After the disposal of the writ petition of the petitioner on 30th July,2002 ( Annexure-1), the Central Pension Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Government of India has issued an order dated 13-11-2002 contained in annexure-6 requiring the Manager of Punjab National Bank Exhibition Road, Patna to take note of revision of pension of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Bank has acted as per annexure-6 but petitioner raises a grievance that earlier the Bank had withheld or not paid the particular amount and that should have been paid by the Bank in the light of order of the writ court. No such direction or finding was given by the writ court in annexure-1 and petitioner was simply given liberty to file a representation before the F.C. I and the Bank was expected to carry out the direction of the concerned authorities and pay the revised pension as and when it is received. On behalf of Bank it has been submitted that still it is prepared to carry out the direction of the competent 2 authority in respect of payment of revised pension or dues to the petitioner provided the competent authority issues necessary direction. In view of aforesaid fact, this contempt application is finally disposed of. If the petitioner wants to agitate or re- agitate in respect of a particular amount not paid by the bank prior to 30th July, 2002, he may file a representation before the F.C.I. or other competent authority and if any direction is issued by the F.C.I. or other competent authority the bank should abide by the same. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)