IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5160 of 2010 Lal Chand Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 5. 24.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Opposite party No. 3 Shri Anirudh Prasad Singh, Joint Commissioner Accounts and Administration, Provident Fund Directorate, Government of Bihar, is present in person. In CWJC No. 1296 of 2010 the controversy was with regard to the difference of salary between that of a Clerk and a Head Clerk. Noticing his contention that he was discharging the duties of the higher post since 1992 till superannuation on 31.10.2008, relying on a Division bench decision reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 144 this Court held that the period of officiation could not be classified as temporary discharge of duties on a higher post under Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code which visualizes a stop gap arrangement. Directions were given for payment of the legitimate dues of the petitioner for the higher officiating post after adjusting the payments already made. The present contempt application was then filed for non compliance. A show cause was filed by opposite party no. 3 affirmed by him on 4.5.2011. That he was under no confusion in understanding the nature of the order of the Court is more than evident from his pleadings in para 2 of the show cause. Nonetheless the stand taken was that the petitioner not been promoted to the higher post and therefore Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code had no application. The show cause then 2 went on to deal with issues of pay scale of need based post of Clerk and Head Clerk. That the petitioner had raised issues of promotion to the post of Head Clerk in certain other applications. That he had been given benefit of ACP. In the second show cause filed on 16.8.2011 the opposite party no. 3 took a stand in para 3 that the petitioner had not mentioned the exact date/period of discharging duties on the post of Head Clerk. Therefore it had been directed to look into the records and ascertain the exact date and period of the petitioner’s duty as Head Clerk so that the arrears of pay in the admissible pay scale may be paid to him. In support thereof an order dated 12.8.2011 passed by the Opposite party no. 3 has been annexed as Annexure ‘A’ giving direction to examine his service records from 1992 for appropriate action. A third show cause is filed today affirmed on 24.8.2011. Para 3 of the same discloses the legitimate dues ascertained by Opposite party no. 3 and paid to the petitioner in compliance of the order of the Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the Court that the payments are not in the correct pay scale. In absence of any direction in the writ petition with regard to the payment of arrears on any prescribed pay scale much less quantification of the arrears, any further enquiry with regard to the claimed dues of the petitioner is not possible in the contempt jurisdiction. The Court had directed the opposite parties to pay the legitimate dues. Once that has been ascertained and placed on affidavit the contempt proceeding must come to an end. However opposite party no. 3 has not placed on record any details of the manner in which the legitimate dues have been calculated and ascertained with the petitioner questioning the same. 3 The Court directs that if the petitioner represents before the Opposite party no. 3 he is obliged to furnish a detailed statement of accounts to the petitioner for the manner in which the legitimate dues mentioned in para 3 of the show cause filed today has been ascertained so that if the petitioner is aggrieved he may question it in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum. The Opposite party no. 3 who was heard in person has not been able to satisfy the Court of any justifiable explanation for the contrary stand taken in the earlier two show cause in view of the legitimate dues now ascertained by him and paid to the petitioner. The Court is disappointed with the manner in which the litigation has been conducted on behalf of the State. It is clearly contrary to the State Litigation Policy published in march 2011. Opposite party no. 3 in person has expressed apology for his conduct. Though the mantra of apology tendered does not satisfy the Court yet it would like to believe that it was a genuine remorse and give him the benefit of doubt with the hope that the opposite party no. 3 shall be more careful in conducting himself with regard to compliance of the court’s order. The proceeding stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)