IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1058 of 2008 PREM SINHA, wife of Late Shri Shashi Bhushan Prasad, Resident of 403-A, P. K. Villa, Mohalla- Mahesh Nagar, P. S. Patliputra, District Patna. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Mr. Kishore Ranjan Sinha, Engineer-in-chief, Road Construction Department, Patna. 4. Mr. Ram Prasad, Superintending Engineer, Soil Investigation Division, Rural Engineering Organization, Patna. 5. Mr. Obedur Rahman, Executive Engineer, Soil Investigation Division, Rural Engineering Organization, Patna. 6. Mr. Rajesh Shrivastava, Director, Provident Fund, Bihar Patna. 7. Mr. Gautam Guha, Accountant General, Bihar, Patna-1 … Opposite parties. ----------- 4. 16.09.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. At the end of the day when the order of this court has been sought to be complied, the grievance of the petitioner that certain lesser amount has been paid would not amount to contempt of the order of this Court. Counsel for the petitioner would in fact submit that there are only two items wherein the petitioner has been paid lesser amount. One of being gratuity and the other family pension. As with regard to gratuity it is being said that provisional amount of gratuity was paid to the tune of Rs.18,000/-only as is apparent from the letter of 2 the Executive Engineer dated 24.4.2009 but then the Office of the Accountant General has proceeded on the basis that provisional payment of gratuity was made to the tune of Rs.42,750/- Mr. Rajgariha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Accountant General would however explain that such calculation was made on the basis of entry made in the service book but then on verification it would be found that the payment of provisional gratuity made to the petitioner was only to the tune of Rs.18,000/-. The balance amount would also be authorized for being paid to him within a period of one month from today. As with regard payment of family pension, counsel for Accountant General would explain that amount of 20% of the pension was originally available on the date the petitioner became entitle for such family pension and its limit has been enhanced prospectively at a later date. He would further submit that whatever amount has been paid to the petitioner on the head of provisional pension is strictly in accordance with law. In the opinion of this court, these two grievances in respect of final amount of gratuity of 3 deceased employee or the family pension payable to the petitioner can definitely be gone into in the light of government decisions by Office of the Account General and therefore if the petitioner would file a representation claiming anything beyond what has been paid to her on these two heads, Office of the Accountant General having examined the same would take final decisions and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks of filing of such representation. It goes without saying that additional payment to which the petitioner may become entitle on account of decision of Account General will also be paid to the petitioner in next four weeks. The petitioner being widow of the deceased employee however would stand precluded from raising any further grievance including time bound promotion to her husband which was never allowed in his life time. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is finally disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)