IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2763 of 2011 Sakldeo Prasad Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 2. 14.9.2011. Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned Assisting Counsel to SC-14 for the opposite party nos.1 to 5. This application has been filed for recall of the order dated 24.2.2011 passed by this court in M.J.C.No.3779 of 2010, whereby this court, considering the circumstances that the service of the petitioner rendered from 9.5.1974 had been counted as pensionable service, the service book of the petitioner had been forwarded to the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna for revision of pension and gratuity on 15.11.2010, the revised pension/gratuity authorisation slip was issued on 29.11.2010 and placed on the records of the proceedings vide Annexure-D to the show cause had disposed of the proceedings. This court, also took into consideration the statement of the State Government that the Headmaster of the school had since been directed for payment of the salary and other benefits as admissible to the petitioner. At the stage of disposal of the contempt 2 application, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press the application. By way of present application, it is thought to be advanced that the disposal of the contempt application had been done on the basis of an incorrect statement made on behalf of the opposite party and that the petitioner has not been provided with the benefits to which he is entitled. On a query made from the learned counsel for the petitioner, he relied upon the statement made in paragraph no.13 and 14 of the application submitting that there is some infirmity in the pay fixation order. While saying so, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although pension and gratuity has been revised but since the pay fixation itself is incorrect, hence, the consequential benefits paid to the petitioner are on the lower side. It is contended that under the orders passed in the writ petition, the respondents are duty bound to fix the pay correctly and then calculate and pay the consequential benefits. Be that as it may. Considering the circumstance that the order of this court for refixation of the pension and gratuity of the 3 petitioner by treating his continuous service w.e.f. 9.5.1974 has been passed by the concerned authorities or the State Government and authorized by the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna and on the basis whereof, the consequential benefits has also been paid to the petitioner, any infirmity or otherwise, with the order of refixation cannot be examined in the contempt jurisdiction and the contempt application was rightly disposed of in the aforementioned circumstances. The petitioner, if so advised, may challenge the refixation order by filing an appropriate application before an appropriate forum. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. ahk ( Jyoti Saran, J.)