IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4754 of 2010 Ram Singhasan Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 6 28.09.2011 Heard Mr. Dharnidhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhuneshwar Pandey, learned A.C. to G.A.8 for the State and Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. The contempt application had been filed alleging non compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 29.01.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2435 of 2007 whereby this Court without recording any opinion as regarding the merits of the claim of the petitioner with regard to fixation of his pay scale, afforded liberty to him to raise his grievance before the Municipal Commissioner of the Patna Municipal Corporation and who was directed to consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of 4 months from the filing of such representation. This court while disposing of the writ petition also made an observation that the pending dues of the petitioner may also be paid in the meanwhile. A show cause and a supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, enclosing an order bearing memo No. 653 dated 30.11.2009 whereby the dues of the petitioner towards gratuity, unutilized leave, differential salary for the period 01.10.1980 to 30.06.1987 and 01.03.1989 to 30.11.1990 and differential amount of pension for the period 01.11.2004 to 31.10.2005 has been calculated and paid to the petitioner. In so far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to 2 differential salary amount by reason of implementation of the 5th pay revision recommendation which was effective from 01.04.1997 in the Patna Municipal Corporation and differential pension amount is concerned it was mentioned that the amount of the differential salary for the period 01.04.1997 to 28.02.2001 and the differential pension amount for the period subsequent thereto with effect from 01.03.2001 to 31.10.2004 shall be paid to the petitioner after receipt of the necessary funds from the State Government. Learned counsel for the Corporation in support of the delayed payment of the differential amount of salary for the period 01.04.1997 to 28.02.2001 and the differential pension amount for the period 01.03.2001 to 31.10.2004, has invited the attention of this Court towards an order dated 16.12.2004 of the Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation by which the 5th Pay Revision recommendation was implemented in the Corporation with effect from 01.01.1996 and submits that the order also had a specific stipulation that although the financial benefits would be effected from 01.04.1997 but the differential amount by reason of the said implementation for the period 01.04.1997 until 31.10.2004 shall become payable to the employees upon receipt of the necessary funds from the State Government. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Corporation that in absence of necessary funds, the said amount has not been paid to any of its employee and no sooner the funds in this regard is received from the State Government it shall be made over to its employees including this petitioner. 3 In so far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding incorrect fixation of pay scale is concerned, the claim of the petitioner was discussed in the Board meeting dated 01.04.2011 and when it was found that the pay fixation of the petitioner had been correctly fixed although an amount of Rs. 706/- was found payable to the petitioner. The proceeding of the Board meeting is placed at Annexure-C of the supplementary show cause and the formal order in this regard has since been passed bearing memo No. 459 dated 17.06.2011 and which has been brought on record by way of a second supplementary show cause filed today, during the course of the proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the position as regarding the justification made by the Corporation for non payment of the differential salary amount, the differential pension amount and also disputes the order whereby, his claim for fixation of pay has been rejected. On considering the circumstances that the order passed by this Court in the writ petition requiring the opposite parties to consider and dispose of the grievance of the petitioner, has since been complied by the respondent authorities of the Corporation, nothing survives in the present proceedings and the same is accordingly disposed of. The petitioner if so aggrieved, may challenge the decision of the Corporation as regarding his pending grievance(s) by filing an appropriate application before an appropriate forum. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)