IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8731 of 2011 ====================================================== Asgari Bano wife of Late Md. Ali Haroon, resident of Milki Mohalla, P.O. Arrah Chowk, P.S. Arrah Town, District Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Senior Divisional Engineer (Co- ordination), East Central Railway, Danapur Division, Danapur 2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur Division, Danapur 3. Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur Division, Danapur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gautam Saha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bindhayachal Singh, Advocate ====================================================== 4 17-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 27.10.2009 whereby, under facts of the case, the Tribunal has refused to entertain and proceed with second contempt petition preferred by the petitioner. For payment of post retiral benefits relating to service of the petitioner’s husband, O.A. No.817 of 2002 was preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench and was decided on 23rd September, 2003. The concerned respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to payment of pensionary benefits and other retiral dues with interest as permissible in law to the applicant within a period of two months. When the payment Patna High Court CWJC No.8731 of 2011 (4) dt.17-10-2011 2 was not made within the prescribed period, a contempt petition bearing CCPA No.20 of 2004 was preferred by the petitioner. The same was disposed of on 30th September, 2004 whereby the Tribunal fixed fresh time schedule for payment of the dues with a direction to the petitioner to submit the required forms after filling them within a fixed time. There is no dispute that admitted dues were paid to the petitioner soon after she furnished the forms. In 2006, another contempt petitioner bearing CCPA No.66 of 2006 was preferred by the petitioner and the same has been dropped as not maintainable by the impugned order dated 27.10.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest has not been paid although it was required to be paid on account of order passed in the Original Application and that while disposing of the first contempt petition, the Tribunal could not have extended the time period and modified the order passed in the OA. He further submits that second contempt petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The order dated 30the September, 2004 whereby Patna High Court CWJC No.8731 of 2011 (4) dt.17-10-2011 3 fresh time schedule was fixed by the Tribunal while hearing contempt matter has attained finality. The Tribunal was required to pass such an order because the petitioner had not furnished the filled up forms under wrong advice. We do not find any good reason to interfere with the views of the Tribunal as appearing in the order dated 30th September, 2004. So far as the impugned order is concerned, the Tribunal, in our view, has wrongly used the term not maintainable and the contempt petition should have been disposed of by observing that if the applicant had a grievance that she had been wrongly denied part of retiral benefits or interest to which she considered herself entitled, she should have preferred another Original Application. In the first OA there was no adjudication as to what amount was payable to the petitioner either as retiral dues or as lawful interest and hence, another application on behalf of the petitioner was maintainable. But such grievance of the petitioner could not have been redressed in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner would, however, be at liberty to prefer Patna High Court CWJC No.8731 of 2011 (4) dt.17-10-2011 4 OA before the Tribunal, if so advised, for seeking relief in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed views on the merits of the matter and OA, if filed, shall be considered on its own merit without causing prejudice to either of the parties. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)