IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2190 of 2006 RAM PADARATH CHOUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv. For the Corporation : Mr. Shashi Kant Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. S. Ali, J.C. to G.A.VI ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 17th July, 2008. The petitioner, who is erstwhile employee of Darbhanga Municipal Corporation, approached this Court for his retiral dues etc. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 18.4.2006, recording therein the statement of the Corporation that all admissible dues has been paid to the petitioner. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to represent to the Chief Executive Officer, if any further claim/amount was outstanding. The relevant portion of the order reads thus: - “In case the petitioner claims further amount, he shall be at liberty to represent before Respondent no.2, the Chief Executive Officer, Darbhanga Municipal Corporation, Darbhanga giving the details of his claim within four weeks. In case any such claim is made, respondent no.2 shall decide the same in accordance with law within three months from the date of its filing and in case on consideration further amount is found due to the - 2 - petitioner, same be paid to him within the aforesaid period.” 2. The petitioner made representation on 13.5.2006 with the details of the outstanding amount as per Anenxure-2. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither the representation made by the petitioner has been disposed of nor the due payment has been made. 4. On behalf of the Corporation, cause has been shown. Paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the show cause read thus: - “4. That it is stated and submitted that the amount of salary, gratuity, leave encashment, G.P.F. and Maturity of group insurance had already paid to the petitioner much earlier. And there is no dues against the corporation of the petitioner in the aforesaid heads. 5. That it is further stated that the amount of pension up to 31.3.06 has already been paid to the petitioner and further payment of pension was made for the month April to June 2006 by cheques to the petitioner by the corporation. 6. That it is further stated that the amount of payment of pension for the period since 1.7.06 to 31.12.06 for about six months and the pension comes to Rs. 567/- per month and D.A. at the rate of 287% was paid to the petitioner. 7. That it is further stated that the D.A. comes to Rs.1627 at the rate of 287% per month against the basic pay amount Rs. 567/- per month and total salary and D.A. per month comes to Rs. 2194/- per month and total aggregate amount for about six months comes to Rs. 13,164/- only. 8. That it is further stated that the said amount of pension amounting to Rs. 13,164/- was paid by cheque vide cheque No. 528590 dated 12.1.2007.” - 3 - 5. An additional show-cause has also been filed by the Corporation. Therein it is reiterated that the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of and that no amount was outstanding as he has been paid admissible medical allowance, maturity of insurance amount, house rent allowance etc. Paragraph 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the additional affidavit read thus: - “4. That it his humbly stated and submitted that the representation of the petitioner has been fully considered by the deponent and there is no dues of the petitioner against the corporation. The deponent has settled the claim finally which is at Sl. No. 1 to 11 of the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner has been paid admissible medical allowances, Maturity of Insurance amount and house rent allowances etc. 5. That it is further stated that the security money of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 200/- is deposited in the post office Laheriyasarai District Darbhanga and the interest of the deposited security amount shall be paid by the post office it serve. The deponent has no manner of concern with the security amount and its interest deposited in the post office. 6. That it is further stated that the D.A. of the rate of 92% against the basic pay of the Rs. 1150 which comes to Rs. 1058 including medical allowances Rs. 50 and house rent allowances Rs. 120 has been paid to the petitioner. The total aggregate amount for about nine months amounting to Rs. 21402/- during the period of July 2000 to March 2001 against the head of salary was paid to the petitioner by the corporation. The state Government has also granted 92% D.A. at the relevant time when the petitioner retired and accordingly the Hon’ble Court has passed order times without number and order to pay D.A. at the rate of 92% in M.J.C. No. 870/04 and C.W.J.C.No. 7. That it is further stated that the D.A. against pension is admissible since 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2004 is paid of the rate of 92% and D.A. since 1.10.2004 to 31.3.3006 was admissible 287% and accordingly the petitioner was paid. The total amount including D.A. during the period of 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2004 comes to Rs. 45738 and the total amount of the petitioner comes to Rs. 85230 Rupees, Rs. - 4 - 19698 was deducted and adjusted against monthly payments and rest of Rs. 65532 was paid to the petitioner by cheque vide cheque No. 840634 dated 7.4.2006 and the petitioner received the said cheque putting his signature on 10.4.2006 on pension bill. So there is no dues in the head of pension upto 31.3.2006 of the petitioner against the corporation”. 8. That it is further stated that the D.A. against gratuity amount is paid at the rate of 79% of the basic salary of the petitioner which comes to Rs. 37389. Rupees 1000 paid is advance and excess payment of Rs. 5005 against H.R.A. as deducted and adjusted. The petitioner was paid Rs. 31384 finally and the petitioner has received the said amount by putting his signature on the payment bill of sanctioned gratuity amount. So there is no dues in the head of gratuity amount of the petitioner against the corporation. It is wrong to say the petitioner is entitled D.A. at the rate of 257%. 9. That it is also made clear that the petitioner was eligible to get H.R.A. since August 1991 to June 2000 of Rs. 120 only but he was wrongly paid Rs. 155 to Rs. 173 at the rate of 15% of basic pay of the salary rather 120 was fixed H.R.A. by the State Government. So the petitioner was entitled to get Rs. 120 only against H.R.A. by the corporation. 10. That it is further stated and submitted that the D.A. at the rate of 92% against the leave encashment amount was paid to the petitioner against the basic pay of Rs. 1150 and the total amount for about eight months comes to Rs. 17664/-. The petitioner has taken advance of Rs. 17000/- against this head and after deducting and adjusting the said amount the rest of Rs. 664 was paid to the petitioner and the petitioner after putting his signature on 10.4.06 received the said amount. So there is no dues in the head of leave encashment amount of the petitioner against the corporation. It is wrong to say that Rs. 257% D.A. is admissible. 11. That it is further stated that Rs. 50 only is paid for medical allowances. Which is paid alongwith the monthly salary bill. It is wrong to say that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 100 as medical allowances. 12. That it is further stated that the monthly payment for about nine months from 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2001, the D.A was admissible at the rate of 92% and - 5 - accordingly the petitioner as contained in annexure-C to this show cause. 13. That it is further stated that interest against the G.P.F. amount has been paid at the rate of 3% since 10.4.67 and further interest at the rate of 3.5% was paid up to March 2006 against S.B.P.F. account paid by the bank as per its scheduled rate. It is also made clear that the principle amount of G.P.F. comes to Rs. 17063.80 paise only and interest there upon comes to Rs. 8632.81 paise only. The total aggregate amount 25695 and accordingly is/was paid to the petitioner. It is wrong to say that twelve percent (12%) interest is admissible against G.P.F. so there is no dues in the head of G.P.F. of petitioner against the corporation.” 6. Having thoughtfully considered the show- cause as well as the additional show-cause, we are of the opinion that opposite party no.3 cannot be held guilty of any deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court passed on 18.4.2006. The Court in exercise of contempt jurisdiction will not make roving and fishing enquiry and go into minute calculation of the amount claimed by the petitioner and paid by the opposite party no.3. Surely there is no case of deliberate disobedience or wilful breach of the order passed by this Court. 7. M.J.C. has not merit. It is rejected accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-