IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4040 of 2009 RAMBALAK ROY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. with MJC No.4041 of 2009 MOHAN ROY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. with MJC No.4042 of 2009 THAKUR PRASAD MODI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. with MJC No.4043 of 2009 RUPNESHWAR HARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Corporation: Mrs. Pravina Kumari (Rai), Advocate ------------ 8. 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party-Corporation. A show cause as also a rejoinder to the show cause has been filed. It is an admitted position that the amounts claimed by the petitioners on account of difference of gratuity and the difference of arrears of pension as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the rejoinders have been paid. However, in the absence of any letter indicating the details of such payment, the petitioners are not in a position to know as to whether the same have been paid in full or not. Considering the submissions as also the show cause and - 2 - the rejoinder, since the necessary payments have been made, these contempt applications need not proceed further. However, the Corporation may inform the petitioners through letter indicating the details of the payments made to them with respect to the difference of gratuity and difference of arrears of pension. On receipt of such information, if any discrepancy in the calculation, including interest, is found, it will be open for the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation for consideration. These contempt applications, thus, stand disposed of. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)