IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2295 of 2006 KANTI DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.S. Mishra, Junior Counsel to Government Advocate-V ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------- Dated, the 31st July, 2008. The writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of on 29th November, 2005 by the following order: - “In that view of the matter, respondent no. 2 (The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna) is hereby directed to recalculate the entire claims of the petitioner in the capacity of the widow of the late employee with respect to the claims either of the late employee or of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1640- 2900/- which shall include the claims admissible and payable while in service, for example salary. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order.” 2. The grievance has been raised by the petitioner that compliance of the order dated 29th November, 2005 has not been done, as notional fixation of petitioner‟s husband in the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 ought to have been from 1st January, 1986. - 2 - 3. In response to the contempt application, a show cause has been filed by the opposite party no.3. In paragraph 8 to 15, the following statement has been made: - “8. That as regard to para 6 and 7 of the M.J.C. petition it is stated that the husband of the petitioner Late Krishna Kumar Singh, Circle Officer was suspended vide departmental order No. 88 dated 22.11.94 Memo no. 1885 dated 22.11.94 with immediate effect of the charges of defalcation and others in Kumargegh and Madholea Tahsil under Revenue Division Bettiah. Departmental proceeding started against him vide letter no. 551 dated 2.6.95 which is concluded and revoked the suspension vide letter no. 376 „K‟ dated 5.3.97 with following punishment. 9. That recovery of Rs. 14,217=98 with 17.5 % interest thereon to recoverable in instalment of Rs. 1,000/- per month. ii. Stoppage of three (3) increments with cumulative effect. iii. Nothing will be paid to him except subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. That the petitioner deposited the amount vide Bank Draft No. 3527 dated 26.2.2003 and the Bank Draft was sent to Revenue Division, Bettiah vide letter no. 796 dated 27.6.2003. 10. That again an another departmental proceeding started against the husband of the petitioner vide letter no. 1365 dated 12.4.94 issued by Additional Collector, Water Resources Department, Patna on the charges of Missing plain receipt Book and Khatiyani issued in 92-93 in Bishanpur Tahsil under Revenue Division, Tarapur. This departmental proceeding concluded and ordered to place him (the husband of the petitioner) at the minimum (lowest) stage of scale of Circle Officer vide departmental order No. 38 dated 15.3.97 Memo no. 485 dated 15.3.97. 11. That the petitioner filed representation before Authority concerned for pathetic consideration for awarded punishment of financial irregularities by her husband in Kumarbagh and Majholia Tahsil under Revenue Division, Bettiah. The concerned authority partially modified the order vide 376 „K‟ dated 5.3.97 and there by the interest was scrapped from the order of punishment and the rest punishment remained as it is. - 3 - Thus the punishment given to the husband of the petitioner is according to Rule and Government order. The husband of the petitioner retired from the service on 31.8.95 and died on 18.8.2000. 12. That as regard of para 12 of M.J.C. petition the petitioner never approached to this office rather the registered letter come to this office. 13. That with regard to the statement made in para 13 of the contempt petition it is stated that in compliance of order passed dated 29.11.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 15334/04 Kanti Devi Vrs. State of Bihar the pay of the husband of the petitioner fixed in revised pay scale of Circle Officer 1640—2900 at the minimum stage of the scale 1640 vide letter No. 1844, dated 26.12.2005 according to the order of department vide order no. 38 dated 15.3.97 Memo no. 485 dated 15.3.97. Hence the petitioner has been requested through letter No. 54 dated 16.1.06 to submit the fresh pension form so that the same can be sent to the A.G. Bihar, Patna. 14. That with regard to the statement made in para 14 and 15 of the Contempt petition it is stated that in compliance of order passed dated 29.11.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 15334/04 the unutilised leave of the petitioner‟s husband calculated for Rs. 21,930 on the basis of revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 at the minimum stage Rs. 1640=00 vide letter No. 62 dated 16.1.2006. Out of which previously paid amount of Rs. 20,060=00 deducted and the rest amount of Rs. 1970/- paid to the petitioner through Bank Draft. 15. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph nos. 16 and 18 of the Contempt petition it is stated that in compliance of order passed on 29.11.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 15334 of 2004 the pay of the petitioner husband fixed in revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 from 1.1.86 notionally and as per Government order monetary benefit is admissible from 1.3.89. Hence the order of differences of arrear salary in revised pay scale from 1.3.89 to 21.11.94 issued vide letter no. 1405 dated 8.8.06 and calculated for Rs. 9476 which is paid to the petitioner vide Bank Draft No. 4686 dated 28.9.2006 on 15.10.2006 through Special Messenger Mahendra Roy „Clerk‟ of this office. Since the husband of the petitioner was suspended vide Department Memo No. 1885 dated 22.11.1994 with effect from 22.11.1994 and retired on 31.8.95. Hence the question of payment of differences of arrears salary after - 4 - 21.11.94 till retirement dated 31.8.1995 does not arise.” 4. A supplementary show cause has been filed on 6th August, 2007. In paragraph 3 thereof, it is stated thus: - “3. That in furtherance to the statements made in the show cause earlier field on behalf of the answering Opposite party the deponent most humbly submits, in reply to the supplementary affidavit that the department vide letter no. 1405 dated 08.08.2006 had modified the earlier pay fixation order, whereafter the pay fixation of the husband of the petitioner was done in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900, however, it was decided that the Monetary benefits of the enhanced pay scale shall be admissible only after 1.3.2007.” 5. We are afraid, the Court cannot, while sitting in contempt jurisdiction, examine the calculation minutely as an Accountant. 6. No. deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court by the opposite parties is found. 7. M.J.C. is disposed of accordingly. If there is any mistake in calculation of post retirement dues pertaining to petitioner‟s husband, it will be open to the petitioner to bring all these aspects to the notice of the opposite parties, who will surely consider the same in accordance with law. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-