Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who claims to be the widow of Late Satyendra Pandey, is aggrieved by non-payment of Rs. 28,000/- towards deferred D. A., with respect to which in the show cause filed in the earlier contempt petition the University stated that the same has been paid, vide cheque no. 027561 dated 26.9.1997, and stoppage of family pension from December, 2000. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner earlier filed C.W.J.C. No. 12174 of 1995, which was disposed of along with other writ petition by common order dated 4.10.1996 (Annexure 1), whereby this Court directed for disposal of her claim in the light of the general direction of this Court. However, when the said direction was not complied, the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 918 of 1997. In the said M.J.C application, it was contended that regular Vice-Chancellor of the University has been suspended by the Honble Chancellor, so no show cause has been filed. It was further contended that the petitioner had already been paid a sum of Rs. 41,045/- vide cheque dated 12.7.1999. After noticing the facts and circumstances, this Court, vide order dated 14.7.1999 (Annexure 2), disposed of the said M.J.C. application di recting the Incharge Registrar of the University to send a chart showing the details of payment made to the petitioner against one or other head within a period of one month and, further, that if any grievance of the petitioner still remains, she may ventilate the same before the University. 3. The petitioner again filed representation along with copy of the said order but the same was not disposed of, which compelled her to file another M.J.C, bear ing No. 153 of 2000. The said M.J.C. along with other M.J.C. applications was disposed of vide order dated 2.2.2000, contained in Annexure 3, directing that the opposite parties will ensure payment of admitted retiral-cum-death benefits to which the petitioner is entitled within three months. if any claim or part thereof is disputed, the opposite party was directed to show reason and communicate the same to the petitioner within the aforesaid time. In case of non-compliance, the petitioner was given liberty to bring the said fact to the notice of this Court for taking appropriate action against the erring officer or person. 4. if any claim or part thereof is disputed, the opposite party was directed to show reason and communicate the same to the petitioner within the aforesaid time. In case of non-compliance, the petitioner was given liberty to bring the said fact to the notice of this Court for taking appropriate action against the erring officer or person. 4. Dispite all these when the order of this Court was not complied the petitioner filed third M.J.C., bearing no. 2514 of 2000 in this Court for initiating contempt. In the said M.J.C. a show cause was filed on behalf of the University and its officials (opposite parties no. 1 to 3), a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 4. In the said show cause it is stated that the petitioner has already been paid a sum of Rs. 1,07,390.99 towards pension and gratuity in two instalments. The said show cause mentioned about the payments made in different heads including that the petitioner is also getting family pension regularly from April, 1996 and, further, that she has been paid a sum of Rs. 28,000/- on ad hoc basis towards deferred D.A. vide cheque no. 027561 dated 26.9.1997 against the claim of Rs. 37,560/-. 5. Considering the show cause this Court dropped the contempt matter on 30th October, 2000 by the following order:- "A show cause has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 showing details of payment made in favour of petitioner. The rest of the amount of Rs. 81,431/-, which was with held in absence of No Dues Certificate is now being released and paid in favour of petitioner through a crossed Account Payee cheque dated 21st October, 2000, issued in the name of petitioner and is being handed over to her counsel in the Court. The counsel for the State submits that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 81,431/- is being released in anticipation of the receipt of No Objection Certificate from the concerned Department. In the facts and circumstances, I do not intend to modify the earlier order passed in M.J.C. No. 153 of 2000. The University may request the concerned Department to send the No Objection Certificate. On receipt of intimation, if any amount is found payable by the petitioner, the University may recover the same from the petitioner. This application stands disposed of." 6. The University may request the concerned Department to send the No Objection Certificate. On receipt of intimation, if any amount is found payable by the petitioner, the University may recover the same from the petitioner. This application stands disposed of." 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University wherein it is stated that the petitioners claim in respect of her Late husbands service and retiral benefits have been re-examined. Initial option being for contributory provident fund only i.e. Scheme C, all moneys paid to the petitioner by way of pensionary benefits are wrong. Accordingly it is further stated that on calculation it has been found that a total sum of about Rs. 2,86,569/- is due against the husband as against a total claim of about Rs. 74,089/- and thus a sum of Rs. 2 lacs is to be recovered from the petitioner, which has wrongly been paid but decision with regard to recovery is yet to be taken by the University. 7. Rule 4 of the Statute governing retirement benefits provides that "All the employees to whom these statutes apply and who joined service in the University/Constituent college before the 1st April 978 and are still in service or have retired on or after 1.4.72 and are alive on the date of notification of these rules have to send the option in writing to the Registrar within three months of the date of such notification. The option once exercised shall be final." 8. However, later the syndicate and the Vice-Chancellor of the University treated it to be not final so as to give fresh option which was clarified by the Honble Chancellor vide order dated 13.10.2000 reiterating that the option once exercised shall be final. The validity of the said decision of the Honble Chancellor was upheld by this Court in the case of Prof. (Dr.) Ram Niranjan Kedia V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 2001(4) PLJR 833 . However, in the present case, it is not in dispute that pursuant to the first option exercised by the deceased teacher, the petitioner was not entitled for family pension and as such the University stopped payment of family pension on the basis of the principle decided by this Court in the case of Prof. (Dr.) Ram Niranjan Kedia vs. State of Bihar (supra). 9. Mr. (Dr.) Ram Niranjan Kedia vs. State of Bihar (supra). 9. Mr. Naredra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the principle decided in the case of Prof. (Dr.) Ram Niranjan Kedia vs. State of Bihar (supra) cannot be applied in the present case in which the claim of the petitioner stands concluded between the parties in the earlier judicial proceeding. Further, it is contended by him that in any view of the matter, recovery cannot be made even as per the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram V/s. State of Haryana, reported in 1995 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 18. 10. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the University, on instruction from the University authority has submitted that in view of the decision of the Honble Chancellor and the decision of this Court upholding the decision of the Honble Chancellor the University is finding difficulty in continuing with the payment of family pension to the petitioner. However, with respect to the recovery, he submitted that the University is yet to take the decision. 11. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner sumbitted that in view of the law regarding retrospective application of the law laid down by the Court being settled long back in the case of Golak Nath V/s. State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1643 (paras 46 & 48), the principle decided by this Court in the case of Prof. (Dr.) Ram Niranjan Kedia vs. State of Bihar (supra) will have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. I find it difficult to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab (supra) the Apex Court while considering the scope of doctrine of stare decisis held that it does not do away with the doctrine of stare decisis, but confines it to past transactions which finds law but restricts its operation to the future and enables the court to bring about a smooth transition by correcting its error without disturbing the impact of those errors on the past transactions. It has been held that it is left to the discretion of the court to prescribe the limits of the retrospectivity and thereby it enables it to mould the relief to meet the ends of justice. It has been held that it is left to the discretion of the court to prescribe the limits of the retrospectivity and thereby it enables it to mould the relief to meet the ends of justice. In paragraph 49, the Apex Court held that ".....Indeed, the doctrine of res judicata precludes any scope for retroactivity in respect of a subject matter that has been finally decided between the parties." 13. In the present case, I find that there was no decision of the Court determining the claim and liability between the parties. The University as per the understanding of law by them made the payment and brought the said fact to the notice of this Court in the show cause filed on their behalf but later when the Chancellor took final decision with respect to it, they had no option but to stop the payment, more so when the validity of the said decision of Honble Chancellor has been upheld by this Court in the case of Prof. (Dr.) Ram Niranjan Kedia vs. State of Bihar (supra). But, at the same time, this Court does not find any justification in withholding payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 28,000/-, about which it was stated that she has been paid the same on ad hoc basis towards deferred D.A. vide cheque no. 027561 dated 26.9.1997 on which basis the contempt matter was dropped. Moreover, the payments already made pursuant to the stand taken by the University in their show cause on the basis of which the contempt matter was finally dropped cannot be recovered, more so in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana (supra) as it is not alleged that the petitioner received the payment by misrepresentation or commission of fraud. 14. As this Court found that the contempt matter was dropped on the statement made in the show cause that the petitioner had been paid Rs. 28,000/- on ad hoc basis towards deferred D.A. and yet the said payment, in tact, has not been made to her, this Court expressed strong displeasure and granted the University an opportunity to correct themselves, but the University did not avail the said opportunity and thus this Court finds it to be a fit case for awarding cost. 15. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with a cost of Rs. 15. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand), which shall be paid by the Vice-Chancellor from his pocket to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 28,000/- by Monday next (17.2.2003), failing which the Vice-Chancellor shall be liable to a further cost of Rs. 1,000- (one thousand) from his pocket to the petitioner and thepetitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for revival of this matter and taking appropriate action.