IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1022 of 2006 SUSHILA DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kr., Advocate For the Respondent : M/s Shashi Bhushan Kr. & Rajeev Kumar, Advocates --------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 9th July, 2008. We heard the counsel for the parties. 2. In the writ petition filed by the present petitioner, on 21.12.2005, it was recorded that the petitioner has received the family pension and retiral benefits but it was not, according to the petitioner, in the revised scale of pay. Thus, the following order came to be passed - “ Accordingly, the authority concerned is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 3. The petitioner made representation on 28.1.2006 in the light of the liberty granted in the aforesaid order. According to the petitioner, the order dated 21.12.2005 has not been complied with. 4. The show cause has been filed by the Opposite party - 2 - no. 5 and along therewith a copy of the order passed on 10.6.2006 has been placed which reads thus: “ In response/compliance of order passed by Honourable High Court in C.W.J.C. No.10123 dt. 21.12.05, the respondent No. 5 i.e. D.W.O. Bank passed a reasoned order. (I) The undersigned received the order of hon’ble High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No.10123 on 08.5.06. (ii) That the petitioner has mentioned in para -5 of M.J.C._____/06 regarding the payment of following arrears during her husband posting in Banka Distt. (1) Pay for the month of Nov.99 (2) Bonus for the year 95-96 (3 Difference of pay due to change of scale from 1640-2900 to 5000-8000 vide finance department Resolution No.660 dt 08.02.99 (iii) That undersigned minutely and with due care examined the aforesaid claim of petitioner. After perusal of relevant document/paper, available in the office, it is observed that the petitioner was relieved from Banka on 08.12.97 to join in the D.W.O. office Lakhisarai in compliance of Director’s Welfare’s Memo No.1755 dt 04.09.97, hence, as per rule, dues of the relieved employee has to be mentioned in his last pay certificate, but after perusal of the L.P.C. issued by undersigned counterpart vide letter no.616 dt 8.12.97 and letter No. 87 dt.8.02.2002, it appears that the L.P.C. does not in corporate all the required information with regard to the arrears, payment of the petitioner. L.P.C. already sent to respondent No.4 does not indicate regarding the arrear dues of the petitioner due to the enhancement of the increment for the period of 1998 to 1997. As well as it also does not indicate regarding the non payment certificate of difference of pay due to change of scale from 1640- 2900 to 5000-8000. Now, the undersigned had corrected it and a revised L.P.C. with all necessary information regarding the payment of arrears of the petitioner has been sent to D.W.O. Lakhisarai by a special messenger on 13.6.06. I Revised L.P.C. sent to respondent No.4 vide letter No.236 dt. 10.6.06, as well as receiving of the revised L.P.C. in respondent No.4 office is annexed as Annexure G & H. 3. That GIS/G.P.F’s monthwise deduction has already sent to D.W.O. Lakhisarai by the undersigned counterpart vide Letter No.237 dt.10.6.06.After the minute observation - 3 - of G.P.F. statement it appears that it also does not incorporate all the necessary/required information sofar the payment of G.P.F. amount is concerned. It is observed that T.V.No. as well as certificate of withdrawal/non withdrawal of advance has not been mentioned in G.P.F. statement of the petitioner sent to respondent No.4. The undersigned find, it necessary to get it corrected, and accordingly corrected it, so that, no objection may be raised at the level of the concerned paying Officer with regard to the payment of G.P.F. amount. I corrected G.P.F. statement dully signed by the competent Authority, sent to respondent No.4 vide letter No.237 dt. 10.06.06 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I. With this order, the matter is disposed off.” 5. Since the reasoned order has already been passed on 10th June, 2006, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the order dated 21.12.2005 has been disobeyed by the opposite parties. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the legality and correctness of the order dated 10th June, 2006, the same may be challenged in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law but the correctness of the said order cannot be examined in M.J.C. proceeding. 6. We are, thus, satisfied that no other order needs to be passed in this M.J.C. It is disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Anil/