IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1807 of 2008 CHHATRADHARI RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 9. 15.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Opposite Party. The grievance is that 50% pension was withheld by the present order set aside by the Court while another 15% has been withheld in pursuance of another punishment. The petitioner was entitled to 35% of his pension. If the order of withholding 50% of punishment has been set aside, he is now entitled to 85% of his pension. The entire pension of 85% tentamounting to Rs. 17,98,444/- is not being paid after deducting what has been paid. Counsel for the Opposite Parties disputes the correctness to submit that is the petitioner’s understanding which is not correct. Though the argument of the petitioner may seem attractive, it cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction in view of the limited and specific nature of the order passed on the writ petition. The quantum of pension entitlement, what has been paid and what remains due appears more to be a 2 matter of accounting which can be best done before the authorities themselves. If the petitioner represents, keeping in mind that he is superannuated officer, this Court expects the opposite parties to render him of necessary information and calculations, grant him hearing so that the controversy is brought to rest at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order and the legitimate dues, if any, are paid within the same period. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)