IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1304 of 2009 GANESHWAR ROY @ GUNESHWAR ROY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, SON OF SRI PHIDI ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARIYOUT, P.O. KARIYOUT, P.S. LANKAHI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI ( BIHAR), PRESENTLY RESIDING IN QR. NO. B-56, BARAUNI REFINERY TOWNSHIP, BEGUSARAI P.S. AND DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI ................................. PETITIONER Versus 1. INDIAN OIL CORP.LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR (REFINERIES) 7, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-3 2. SRI B.N. BANKAPUR, THE DIRECTOR ( REFINERIES) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.7 , INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-3. 3. SRI SATISH KUMAR GARG, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ED), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BARAUNI REFINERY,BEGUSARAI. 4. SRI HARI PRASAD DATTA, THE CHIEF INSPECTION PERSONAL MANAGER (CIPM) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI. 5. SRI MUKESH KUMAR PADIA, GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL SERVICES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI. 6. SRI M.R. SONDE, THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL SERVICES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI. 7. SRI T. BALKRISHNA, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ( HUMAN RESOURCES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI. 8. SMT. PIYALI CHAKRAVARTY, SENIOR MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCES), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI. 9. THE STATE OF BIHAR............................. RESPONDENTS/ OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---------------- 3 10-2-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation and its officials and learned counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner has been allowed to join pursuant to order of the writ court and has also been paid his basic salary along with D.A. Now the dispute is whether consequential benefits as ordered by the - 2 - writ court would include other allowances or not as this issue has not been clarified by the writ court. The payment of allowances will depend upon the terms and conditions of service. Normally, such allowances should have been paid as the consequential benefits to which he was entitled if the petitioner had been allowed to continue in service without accepting his resignation. But as per terms and conditions of service what would have been paid to the petitioner, is an issue which cannot be appropriately decided in contempt jurisdiction. Hence, the contempt application is finally disposed of with liberty that petitioner may pursue his grievance regarding other allowances by way of consequential benefits through a representation or an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) Naresh