IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1444 of 2006 YAMUNA DATT JHA Versus BHAGALPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIO ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate For the Corporation:- Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Ravindra Priyadarshi, J.C. to A.A.G. 3 9 22.9.2008 This contempt application has been filed for violation of the order dated 22.2.2006. This High Court’s order was in two parts. The first part was that the petitioner who is now substituted, by his heirs was to be paid the amounts mentioned at paragraph 13 of the writ application. The second part of the order was that the opposite parties which included the State and the Corporation were to revise the pension of the petitioner as per Rule 44 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Officers and Servants Pension Rule. The first part of the order stands complied today. The petitioner’s dues were paid in three installments i.e. on 5.7.2006, 8.4.2007 and finally on 30.8.2008. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of - 2 - the Municipal Corporation submits that the Corporation was undergoing financial crisis and this Court’s order was not deliberately violated in making payment after delay. The second part of the order of this Court is that the opposite parties are directed to revise the pension of the petitioner for which he is entitled under Rule 44 of the Rules. Rule 44 reads as follows: “The amount of pension (Rate or Slab) when revised in case of Government servant or after the date of adoption this rule be admissible to Corporation employees”. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer of the Bhagalpur Municipality. It has been submitted on behalf of the Corporation that the revision in accordance with Rule 44 has not been adopted by the Bhagalpur Municipality. Till today the Corporation is facing financial crisis. It has further been stated that the Bhagalpur Municipality has not revised its scale inconsonance with the Government scale and none of the employees of the Bhagalpur Municipality - 3 - have been paid their pension at the revised scale. It has further been submitted that until and unless the Corporation has funds to make payment, it would be impossible for the Corporation to comply with Rule 44. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for grant of revised pension has been rejected by order dated 22.6.2007. In the circumstances aforesaid, this Court does not find that the opposite parties have deliberately violated the orders of this Court. However, the Corporation is directed to place the matter before the Municipal Board and the Municipal Board should bring it to the notice of the State Government so that things may be rectified and a mode may be worked out for implementation of the Rules. In the aforesaid observations this contempt application is disposed of. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan,J.)