2026:JHHC:14334-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Cvl.) No.654 of 2025 ----- Bhawataran Dey, aged about 79 years, son of Late Upendra Nath Dey, resident of Gowalpara, PO +PS- Pakur, Dist-Pakur, Jharkhand-816107 ....... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dr. Mantu Kr. Tekriwal, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, PO+PS+District-Pakur … … Opposite Parties ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Advocate Mrs. Rita Kumari, Advocate For the OPs : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to GP-II ------ Order No.12/Dated: 12th May, 2026 1. In pursuance to the order dated 30.04.2026, the O.P No.2, namely, Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Pakur is present in the Court. 2. A show cause dated 08.05.2026 by way of 4th supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of O.P No.2. 3. This Court while issuing notice upon the concerned opposite party, i.e., O.P No.2, has taken cognizance of the fact that why, on initial occasion, a sum of Rs.9,982/- has been calculated as per the entitlement of the petitioner which has subsequently been enhanced to Rs.21,294/-. The remaining amount of Rs.11,312/- was more to be paid. 4. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, has issued notice under Rule 393 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules and in pursuant thereto the O.P No.2 is present today. 5. It has been stated in the said supplementary show cause that the calculation has again been made and now the amount has come to 2026:JHHC:14334-DB 2 Rs.23,335/- and, as such, the rest of the amount after deducting Rs.9,982/- is payable to the petitioner which comes to Rs. 13,353/- and the same has already been paid vide Bill No.09/2026-27 dated 06.05.2026 as would be evident from paragraph-16 of the said show cause as available in Annexure-S/N. 6. So far as the calculation of amount up to 01.04.1997 is concerned, the stand has been taken in paragraph-14 of the show cause that the petitioner, since, has retired on 31.12.2002, however, the calculation was shown till 30.04.1999 and it is for the reason that from May, 1999 till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, i.e., on 31.12.2002, he has been paid salary on the revised scale as per 5th Pay Revision. 7. It has also been stated that the benefit of 1st ACP has also been given. The issue of pension, being the consequence, has also been fixed. 8. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the order of this Court has been complied with. 9. The concerned opposite party, i.e., O.P No.2 is being discharged. 10. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition stands closed and disposed of as such. 11. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated:12.05.2026 Sudhir