IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.452 of 2007 Seema Kumari, Daughter of Late Kedar Prasad Gupta, resident of village, PO and PS Surajpura, District-Bhojpur, presently residing at village and P.O. Karmnasha, P.S. Durgawati, District-Kaimur (Bhabua) ………………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Energy, old Secretariat, Patna 2. Sri Madan Mohan, S/O not known, The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. Arun Chand Singh, S/O not known, The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. Sri Akhileshwar Prasad, Finance Controller, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. Sri Pramod Tiwary, Director Accounts, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna 6. Sri R.N.Roy, Director Personnel, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 7. Sri R.P.Choudhary, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Magadh area Bihar State Electricity Board, Transmission Zone-3, Patna 8. Sri B.N.Singh, Electrical Superintending Engineer, Transmission Circle, Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas 9. Sri H.N.Pd., Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Circle, Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas 10. Sri Brijendra Kumar Nirala, Accounts Officer, Transmission Circle, Bihar State Electricity Board, Gaya. …. Opp.Parties. ----------- 2. 29.07.2009 Heard learned counsels for the parties. It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the retiral dues of the petitioner have now been paid. The only grievance of the petitioner is that wrong statement was made in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition regarding the gratuity having been paid and further since the same has been paid after much delay interest should be awarded on the same. So far as the statement in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition is concerned, it is stated in para-13 of the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties that no such instruction was - 2 - given regarding payment of gratuity and on account of typographical error the statement was made that gratuity had been paid. It is however, pointed out that the full amount of gratuity both in the old pay scale as well as revised pay scale has been paid to the petitioner on 24.8.2007. Further an unconditional and unqualified apology has been sought for not verifying the statement before swearing the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear that any deliberate statement was made to mislead this Court in filing the counter affidavit in the writ petition. So far as the question of interest is concerned, this Court in its contempt jurisdiction is only concerned with the compliance of the order under contempt. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)