Kamta Singh vs The State of Bihar and Others

Rakesh Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Shambhu Sharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Kumar Jha, learned A.C. to A.A.G. No. 13. The present petition was filed with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding against opposite parties particularly opposite party No. 3 on an allegation of willful disobedience to the order dated 13.4.2010 passed in Kamta Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, . By the said order a bench of this court had disposed of the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner in the following manner:--

"In view of the above, in case such representation stating details of unpaid claims as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of the claim along with the certified copy of the present order is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the grievances of the petitioner raised in the representation shall be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. In case the representation of the petitioner finds favour, the respondent No. 3 shall simultaneously issue necessary orders communicating the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Accountant General so that the Accountant General on receipt of such order may issue fresh authorization for payment after making necessary verification, if any. In course of such verification if the Accountant General finds any ambiguity the same shall be again informed to the respondent No. 3 for its immediate consideration and compliance so that the matter may be considered afresh if required. However, the Accountant General on consideration finds no ambiguity the necessary authorization for payment in question be issued within a period of four weeks on receipt of the sanctioned order from the competent authority to enable payment of the admitted dues to the petitioner with interest permissible under the rules."

It has been complained by the petitioner that despite order passed by this court, the opposite party No. 3 has not passed reasoned order and not complied the order passed by writ court.

In this case, a show cause has been brought on record, wherein, it has been indicated that in compliance with the order of this court opposite party No. 4 has already sent communication to the Accountant General (Annexure-1 to the show cause).

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out certain discrepancies in the communication and he also raises a point that in the light of direction of this court reasoned order was required to be passed. He submits that pension for the period from "1.1.1971 to 31.3.1997 has not been revised. Learned State Counsel submits that reasoned order was required to be passed in case of rejection of claim. Since communication has already been sent to the Accountant General, the order passed by the writ court has already been complied with. So far examination of correctness of the order contained in Annexyre-1 to the show cause is concerned, the court is of the opinion that in contempt jurisdiction it would not be appropriate to examine the correctness of the same. If so advised, petitioner may avail appropriate remedy. The petition stands disposed of.