IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2818 of 2007 BABU LAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Bankey Bihari Singh, Advocate. For the opposite parties: Mr.Shyam Kishore Sharma, G.A.5 and Mr.Sanjay Prakash Verma , J.C. to G.A.5. 3. 11.9.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. In the writ application there was an order of this Court that the petitioner would be entitled for 12.5 per cent interest, if he had made the required deductions in the salary. By the order dated 22.8.2008, this Court had directed the counsel for the State to produce the Scheme. The Scheme is at annexure-B to the show cause filed on 2.9.2008. As per the Scheme, the employees had to deposit 12.5 per cent of his basic scale to be given the benefit of the new Scheme by December, 1985. The counsel for the State submits that on the basis of the Scheme, the petitioner did not enter into new Scheme and he had deposited 12.5 per cent of his basic amount since February, 1986, and as such, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme as he did not enter into new Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, submits that he made a deposit on 7.2.1990 of the remaining amount for the year 1985 to December, 1989. The Scheme states that if the deposits are made beyond the cut-off date, then the employees would - 2 - not be entitled to the benefit of the new Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order of this Court dated 21.3.2005 passed in C. W. J. C. No. 13261 of 2004. In that case the Provident Fund amount was deducted from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner was to deposit Rs. 80.50 per month to be entitled to the grant of 10.50 % interest. This court has found that Rs.80/-was deducted from his salary and on purpose .80 Paisa was not deducted. This Court also similarly come to a finding that the contribution amount from the G. P. F. was increased to 12.5 per cent interest per annum. The authorities in question deliberately did not deduct .62 Paisa from his salary. This Court has rightly held that short fall of the deductions made by the authorities, appears to be on purpose and by virtue of this deduction mandatory amount required to be deducted was not done on behalf of the petitioner Nawal Kishore Sinha. In the present case there is no such finding by the Writ Court. However, in the order impugned as well as in the order passed in contempt application being M.J.C.No.1677 of 2005 this Court has held that “if deductions have been made at the rate of Rs.12.5 per cent from the salary of the petitioner and if the same is evident from annexure-6 then the petitioner shall be paid an interest over his deposits at the rate of Rs.12.5 per cent within a period of 60 days from today.” From the show cause filed in the present case and the chart - 3 - supplied by the petitioner, it appears that the deductions of the petitioner till the year January,1986 were made in accordance with reductions required to be made if 10.5 per cent interest was to be paid. The petitioner through his chart has also pointed out in this Court that he has deposited the short fall in 1989-90. However, it has been stated in the show cause that the money that has been deposited is with respect to some other amount due from the petitioner. This Court is not going into the merits of the claim and counter-claim with respect to the deposit but this much is apparent from the documents available on the record that the petitioner had not got the required amount of salary deducted to be paid 12.5 per cent interest of the Provident Fund. In the circumstances, I find that there is no deliberate contempt in this case. This contempt application is dismissed. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)