IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1784 of 2007 DR.KRISHNA KUMAR SAHAY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. Mr. Mayank Rukhiyar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath,AAG-IV and Mr. Ray Saurabh Nath,J.C.to A.A.G.-IV. For Acctt. General : Mr. L.P.K. Rajgrihar,Sr.Adv. ----------- 3 29.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Accountant General. This contempt application has been filed for alleged violation of order dated 16.01.2004 passed in the writ matter of the petitioner, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 640 of 2004, which was disposed of along with large number of cases by a common order. As per the common order, the respondents were required to process the retrial dues of the petitioner and pay the admitted dues within stipulated time. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents did not process the claims of the petitioner within stipulated time and sat over the matter and finally when the criminal case against the petitioner ended in 2 conviction of the petitioner, they passed orders under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules affecting his provisional pension as well as gratuity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had the respondents complied with the orders of this Court within time, the amount of gratuity would have been paid to the petitioner. It is only due to delay in the matter of compliance of the order that the petitioner has been deprived with the benefits of said payments. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as order of provisional pension and gratuity is concerned, the petitioner will have to independently challenge the same and the matter can not be adjudicated in this contempt application. So far as delay caused by the opposite parties in compliance with the order concerned, he submits that they should be penalized for the same. In this context learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order of a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dated 27.7.2007 passed in L.P.A. No. 433 of 2005 wherein cost 3 of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by learned Single Judge was approved by the Division Bench in similar circumstances. This Court was inclined to award cost in the matter for deliberate delay by the opposite parties in compliance of the orders of this Court passed in the matter relating to the petitioner, but for the fact that learned counsel for the Accountant General drew the attention of this Court to an earlier order of State Government dated 23rd August, 2003, as contained in Annexure-A to the show cause filed on behalf of the Accountant General, which shows that earlier provisional pension and gratuity of the petitioner had already been with-held, by this order of the Government dated 23rd August, 2003. Only provisional pension to the extent of 90% was sanctioned and the Accountant General was instructed to issue necessary authority slip. In view of Annexure-A it can not be said that on the date writ application was disposed of his gratuity was admittedly payable. Since, rightly or wrongly, an order 4 has already been passed by the Government with-holding the gratuity, the dues amount of gratuity of the petitioner did not come in the category of admitted dues of the petitioner on the date his writ application was disposed of by the said order. In the circumstances, I am of the view that no deliberate disobedience of order of this Court is made out in the matter and therefore this contempt application is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)