IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3046 of 2008 P.C. PRIYADARSHI, aged about 57 years S/o late Manoj Ranjan Prasad, Resident of Daldari Road, Danapur Cantt, Patna Bihar); presently compulsorily retired from the postof District savings Officer from National Savings/ NSI ( Govt. of India)….. petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary to the G.O.I,M.O.F.(DEA), New Delhi. 2. Madam L.M.Vas, I.A.S. the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 3. Dy. National Savings Commissioner, Nagpur thjrough Regional Director, National Savings ( Govt. of India),234/4, Acharya J.C. Bose Road, Nizam Palace, Kolkatta 700020…… Opp. Parties. ----------- C. REV. No.117 of 2009 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary to the G.O.I., M.O.F. ( D.E.A.), New Delhi 2. The Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 3 .Dy National Savings Commissioner, Nagpur through Regional Director, National Savings ( Govt. of India )234/4, Acharya J.C.Bose Road, Nizam Palace, Kolkata-700020. Respondents/ Petitioners. Versus 1. P.C. Priyadarshi aged about 57 years son of Late Manoj Ranjan Prasad, resident of Daldari Road, Danapur Cantt. Patna Bihar) presently compulsorily retired from the post of District Savings Officer from National Savings/ NSI ( Govt. of India).. Petitioner/respondent 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench Sri Krishna Nagar, District patna through its Registrar 3. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi…. Respondents. 4 23-06-2009 Heard the parties. The petitioner has appeared in person and has submitted that while computing and sanctioning for payment of his pension and gratuity, the concerned authorities have failed to keep in mind the recommendations of 6th Pay Revision Committee which has been - 2 - made applicable with effect from 17th October, 2006. It has further been submitted by the petitioner that the authorities have committed error of law as well as of fact in not treating the suspension period as period spent on duty. The present matter is under contempt jurisdiction and after going through the earlier order of this court contained in annexure-1 we find that this Court had no occasion to consider or decide the aforesaid two grievances of the petitioner. The only observation in annexure-1 was that since the petitioner has accepted the order of compulsory retirement dated 10th August, 2005, as per that order petitioner be paid full pension and full gratuity as admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement, if not paid so far, within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of that order. We are of the view that the grievances raised by the petitioner as noticed above cannot be decided in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, hence this petition is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise his grievances before the concerned authorities who shall look into the matter and take a decision in accordance with law at an early date and preferably within four months. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the authorities, he shall be at liberty to challenge the same through an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. Civil Review No. 117 of 2009 - 3 - Naresh In view of final order passed in contempt proceeding ( M.J.C.No. 3046 of 2008) decided today no further and separate order need be passed. The review petition is disposed of. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ) ( Anjana Prakash, J)