IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1223 of 2009 MOST JAINA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE UPENDRA PRASAD VERMA, RESIDENT OF VILL+P.O. HIRANBI, P.S. DHASIYA, DISTT- BANKA ………….. PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SRI ASHISH KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANKA 2.SRI R.S.SINHA, S/O NOT KNOWN, CIRCLE OFFICER, BALHAR, DISTT- BANKA ……….. OPP.PARTIES ----------- 9. 02/02/2011 Writ application of the petitioner was disposed of by a general order passed in a batch of cases. Particular facts of the case of the petitioner were not considered. By the general order, respondents were directed to pay penal interest as well as statutory interest on the due amount of pensionary benefits of the concerned employees. Opposite parties have file show cause submitting that penal interest have been paid to the petitioner on the due amount of his pensionary benefits. In this contempt application, grievance was raised by the petitioner that statutory interest as per Government Letter No.3155 dated 7.11.1981 has not been paid. This Court by order dated 3.11.2010 required an affidavit from the Chief Secretary as to whether the said letter dated 7.11.1981 was in operation or not and whether 2 the same is being strictly implemented in respect of delayed payment of retrial dues to the retired employees or not. Today a show cause has been filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary in which it is stated that the said letter is still in operation. A further letter has been issued by the Chief Secretary dated 27.1.2011, annexed as Annexure-B and addressed to all the authorities of the Government concerned, clarifying the position that interest is payable under the said letter on delayed payment of dues of retired employees and amount of interest has to be recovered from the concerned Government official found responsible for the delay. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the petitioner had moved this Court raising a grievance in respect of non- payment of retrial benefits of her husband after 18 years of his retirement and after one year of his death. Since the facts of this case had not been noticed in the order disposing of the writ application, this Court is not inclined to proceed in this contempt matter. The same 3 is dropped. The petitioner, if so advised, will be at liberty to take steps in respect of her claims independently. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)