IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2745 of 2004 LAHASO DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite parties : Mr. R.K. Priyadarshi, JC to AAG-3 ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 14th July, 2008. We heard the counsel for the parties. 2. On 14.11.2002, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court by the following operative order: - “Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent-Municipality to decide the claim of the petitioner within a week of the receipt/production of a copy of this order and pay the admitted dues within one week thereafter. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner will be entitled for a cost of Rs.1,000/-, which shall be paid by the Special Officer, who is now the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipality from his pocket.” 3. The grievance has been raised in this contempt petition (M.J.C. No. 2745 of 2004) that the complete due payment, as per the claim of the petitioner has not been made. 4. On behalf of Opposite party no.2, written response has been filed. In paragraph 4 and 5, the following statement - 2 - has been made: - “4. That it is stated that in addition to the statement made in paragraph 13 of the earlier show- cause, it is stated that subsequently, it was found that Rs.500/- was given to the husband of the petitioner as an advance, which was not returned or adjusted. Thus, actually Rs.22233/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty three only) was admissible to the husband of the petitioner against leave encashment. 5. That it is stated that a cheque has been issued bearing cheque no.511686 of Bank of Baroda, Tekari, dated 11.02.2006 of Rs.22233/- in favour of the petitioner and has been handed over to her on 13.02.2006.” 5. That the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.22,233/-, as stated in paragraph 5 of the show-cause is not disputed. 6. The counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner relating to retiral benefits of her husband, due salary, leave encashment, gratuity and bonus is much more. 7. We are afraid, the contention does not deserve to be accepted. 8. It will be seen that the deceased employee raised the grievance with regard to his unpaid salary and other amount prior to his dismissal. The matter went in appeal being L.P.A. No.748/1995. A contempt proceeding was taken out vide M.J.C. No.2956 of 1996, wherein written response was filed by the Tekari Municipality. It was recorded therein that an amount of Rs.94,124/- has been paid to the petitioner, in relation to the period prior to his dismissal. The said amount included the current salary during the - 3 - period the petitioner had already worked after reinstatement. 9. In the second writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 8205 of 2000) the direction that has been given to the Municipality is to decide the claim of the petitioner within a week and to pay the admitted dues within one week thereafter. It is true that there is delay in deciding the claim, but the fact of the matter is that the due amount of Rs.22,233/- has been paid. 10. In out considered view, nothing further needs to be done in this M.J.C. It is disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-