IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3314 of 2007 DIN BANDHU MAHARAJ, son of late Sachitanand Maharaj, resident of village Madhurapur, PS Bidhupur, Distt. Vaishali …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajesh Ranjan, son of name not known, Inspector General of Police, CID, Crime, Bihar, Patna ….Opposite Parties ----------- 03- 7.7.2010 Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi for the petitioner, and Mr. S B N Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Govt. Advocate no.IX. This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No.670 of 2006 (Din Bandhu Maharaj v State of Bihar & Ors.) for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 21.5.2007, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the Superintendent of Police (B), Special Branch, Govt. of Bihar, to dispose of the petitioner’s representation for the money benefits allegedly due to him. The contemners have placed on record their show-cause. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner was in the services of the Bihar Government and was at the relevant point of time posted as Sub- Inspector of Police. While he was posted at Ranchi, he had visited certain factory impersonating himself as B K Jha, CID Inspector, and tried to extract benefits from the Company. The matter was detected, he was placed under suspension and subjected to departmental proceeding. He was punished in the 2 departmental proceeding. The petitioner ultimately superannuated from the service of the Bihar Government way back in 2003. He preferred the aforesaid CWJC No.6701 of 2006 praying therein that he had not been paid uniform allowance, the benefits of Pay Revision Committee, annual increment, salary, and subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, which has been disposed by order dated 21.5.2007 (Annexure 1), whereby the S.P. Special Branch was directed to dispose of the same by a reasoned order. The same has been disposed of by order 19.9.2007 (Annexure A). It appears from a perusal of the order dated 19.9.2007, the S.P. has found as follows:- (i) The uniform allowance has already been paid to him and receipt whereof was available in the office. (ii) In so far as the benefits admissible to him on account of implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Commission are concerned, he has found as follows:- “;g fd tgkWa rd okf"kZd osru o`f}@cdk;k osru@ffuyacu vof/k dk cdk;k osru ,oa iqufjf{kr osrueku ds cdk;k jkf'k dk iz'u gS, bl laca/k esa leh{kksijkar fuEufyf[kr rF; izdk'k esa vk;k k Okf"jZd osru o`f}@cdk;k osru@iqufjf{kr osrueku dk cdk;k HkRkk fo'ks"k 'kk[kk vkns'k la0&259@06 ,oa 3165@02 n~okjk vkns'j fuxZr fd;k tk pqdk gS k” iii) In so far as the question of payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, it appears that he was under suspension during the period 19.9.86 to 3 26.3.87. He has been paid his subsistence allowance for the period. (iv) In so far as the differential amount of salary is concerned, the same has been directed not to be paid to him as a consequence of punishment inflicted on him during the course of departmental proceeding. 4. It thus appears to us that every item of claim raised by the petitioner was examined by the S.P. Special Branch, and the aforesaid finding of facts has been recorded. We are thus of the view that the entire dues of the petitioner have been paid to him and nothing survives for consideration. 3. This application is accordingly rejected. ( S K Katriar ) mrl