IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1921 of 2007 Sahodari D/o Somar, Resident of Mohalla – Cherki, P.S. Cherki, District – Gaya ……… Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar through Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Mrs. S. Jalza, the Secretary cum Commissioner, Urban Development, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna – 1 3. Mr. Satish Tiwari, the Chief Executive Officer cum Municipal Commissioner, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya ………Opposite parties. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 3rd December, 2008. I.A. No. 6646 of 2008 The sole applicant Sahodari, daughter of Somar is said to have died on 22nd July, 2008. Her son Saryu Manjhi is also said to have died after her death but before making the present application. Her daughter-in-law namely, Sarsatiya has made this application for her substitution in place of Sahodari. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, we are satisfied that the applicant Sarsariya may be substituted in place of Sahodari. We order accordingly. 3. Amendment in the cause title shall be carried out - 2 - forthwith. 4. We heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite parties. The counsel for the opposite parties invited our attention to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the show-cause which read thus: “That as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court the claim of the petitioner has been re-examined on 28.06.2008 and she was found entitled the amount which has been paid/adjusted as per details given below:- (a) Gratuity 6458.00 (b) Rest amount of provident fund 4215.00 (c ) Interest on provident fund (up to date) (d) Pension (1.5.95 to 31.3.08) 106977.00 Along with Different rate of D.A. 123021.00 Including D.A. at the rate of 295% Out of aforesaid claim the following amount has been paid/adjusted to the petitioner. (i) Earn leave (221 days excess leave) 13702.00 (ii) Pension earlier paid 84348.00 (vide different voucher) (iii) Advance taken (voucher 3591.00 No. 198 dt. 4.9.06 ----------------------- 101641.00 After adjustment of the aforesaid amount Rs.101641.00 from 123021.00 it comes Rs.21380/- which is found to payable to the petitioner. That it is submitted that vide order dated 12.07.2008 passed by the opp. Party no. 3 aforesaid amount Rs. 21380.00 already been sanctioned on the name of the petitioner, but till date that petitioner has not turn up for collection of the same. It is relevant to state here that petitioner or in her absence, her legal heir can collect the same on the authority letter.” 5. It, thus, appears that out of the amount of Rs.1,23,021/- payable to the deceased employee, Rs. 1,01641/- had been adjusted as set out in paragraph 8 and for remaining amount of Rs.21,380/-, sanction order has been issued. It is for the applicant to - 3 - satisfy the authorities that she is the sole heir of the deceased employee and entitled to collect the retiral benefits of the deceased employee. Her substitution is only for the purpose of MJC. In so far as opposite parties are concerned, they have already stated in the show-cause that legal heir of the deceased employee may collect the amount of Rs.21,380/-, if she is entitled to do so. 3. In the light of the stand set up by the opposite parties, we are satisfied that nothing further needs to be done in this contempt application. It is disposed of accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/ - 4 -