IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.705 of 2010 Kishori Singh, aged 67 years son of late Ram Nandan Singh, resident of village Dariapur, P.O. & P.S. Siwai Patti, District Muzaffarpur………………………………………………………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 2. Sri Ajay B. Nayak, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. Sri Anupam Kumar, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Bihar, Pant Bhawan, Patna. 4. Sri K.N. Lal, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Chief Engineer, Mechanical, Water Resources Department, Old Secretariat Barrack, Patna. 5. Sri Bacha Nand Singh, name of father not known to the petitioner, the District Provident Fund Officer, Purnea. 6. Sri S.C. Vellu, name of father not known to the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Purnea. 7. Sri Madan Prasad, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Circle, Birpur, District Supaul. 8. Sri Devendra Pandit, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Division, Birpur, District Supaul. 9. Sri I.D.S. Dhariwal, the Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna 10. Sri Sanjay Bishwas, name of father not known to the petitioner, the District Provident Fund Officer, Saharsa…………………….…………Opposite Parties -------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Nath Ram, Advocate For the State: S.C. No.2 For Accountant General: Mr. Binod Kr. Labh, Advocate 4 24.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2 From Annexure-A as annexed with the show cause of opposite party no.7, it appears that the amount of G.P.F. of the petitioner withheld by the opposite parries has been refunded to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also accepts the same. However, he submits that petitioner has still some grievance with regard to fixation of last pay-scale and revision of his pension. Accordingly, this issue cannot be decided in the contempt application. Hence, the contempt application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to agitate his grievance in accordance with law in an independent proceeding. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)