Chandra Mohan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
Patna High Court MJC No.2510 of 2013 (9) dt.06-10-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2510 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4789 of 2010 ====================================================== Chandra Mohan Singh .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Jay Prakash Sharma, A.C. to G.P.XX1 For the Accountant General: Mr. L.P.K. Rajgrihar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 06-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and for the Accountant General, Bihar. In the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party No.3, it is stated that the P.P.O. and G.P.O. have since been issued by the office of the Accountant General, Bihar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pension of the petitioner cannot be as low as Rs.2029/- which after deduction of 25% becomes Rs.1522/-, as the petitioner was in service from 1973 to 2007.
Learned counsel also produces before this Court an office order dated 22.09.2016 which is after the PPO dated 29.06.2016, by which the pay scale of the petitioner after the 6th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2016 has been fixed at Rs.9,340/-. It is thus
Patna High Court MJC No.2510 of 2013 (9) dt.06-10-2016 submitted that the pension of the petitioner would obviously be much higher than what has been given in the PPO and so also in the GPO.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that there is no willful disobedience of the order under contempt. For the revision of the PPO and GPO, it shall be open to the petitioner to file a representation before the authorities concerned who shall ensure that the proper pension and gratuity is paid to the petitioner in accordance with the revised pay scale. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) V.P.Sinha/- U