IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1670 of 2003 RAM LAKHAN PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Man Mohan Mr. Vikas Mohan For the respondent nos. 1 to 3 : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, GA – X Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, JC respondent no.4 : Mr. L.P.K.Rajgriar (Accountant General) P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 19th August, 2008 In the supplementary show-cause dated 14th August, 2008, the following statement has been made by the opposite party no.4: “ 8. That I may be humble reiterated that the petitioner had already been authorized Rs.1,47,554.65 through different authorities earlier on account of difference of pay and allowance on the basis of pay slips issued time to time, in the light of Govt. order/s Notifications which included claims for the periods, which have been claimed by the petitioner through the instant pre-audit bills. 9. That I may also be submitted that in view of the order of the department, allowing monetary benefit, difference of leave encashment gratuity have also been authorized vide nos- GE-12-1114-16 dated 12.8.2008 and Pen-XI-(08-09)-1612 dated 12.8.2008. 10. That it is further submitted that pensions of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.5100-6300 (pre-revised scale) payable from 1.8.1995 and in the scale of Rs.16400-20000 (replaced revised scale) payable from 1.4.1997 had been authorized vide nos. Pen XI-6025 and Pen XI – 6028 each dated 1.12.2005. 11. That the deponent assures that all grievances of the 2 petitioner have been redressed and claims authorized, but yet the petitioner has been requested by a separate letter vide no. GE-12-1094 dated 7.8.2008 that if any further claim according to him comes due he may meet the deponent with full details where he will be given full cooperation and if any further amount comes payable, it will be authorized to him without any further delay. An instruction to this effect has been given to the officers concerning authorization. The deponent also assures that authorization made and the calculation which has been done by the office is to the best of motive and is correct as per the records of the office. The deponent humbly reiterates that since the responsibility of authorization by the office of the deponent depends upon the order/notification/sanction of the State Government/department delay if any in compliance of order dated 30th November 1998 is not fully attributable to the deponent.” 2. We are, thus, satisfied that no action under contempt jurisdiction needs to be taken against the respondents. 3. MJC is disposed of , accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-