Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who claims to be the daughter of late Gaya Manjhi, who was employed as Khalasi in Water Board, Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya and died in harness on 9.9.2003 and his wife also died much earlier to the death of the deceased employee, has sought for direction to the respondent authorities to pay death cum retiral dues of her late father, such as gratuity, provident fund. leave encashment, arrears of salary, bonus, difference of salary and group insurance. She has produced a true copy of the certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Town Gaya vide Memo No. 4 dated 2.1.2004 showing Her and Rajendra Kumar (Nati) as the family member of the deceased. It is alleged that after the death of her father she applied for payment of his death cum retiral dues vide Annexure 2 but except a sum of Rs. 3,000/- nothing has been paid. She claims to be the sole legal heir and entitled to receive the entire death cum retiral dues of her late father. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Chief Executive Officer, Water Board of Gaya Municipal Corporation, in which it is stated that as against the gratuity, leave encashment and arrear of salary amounting to Rs.16,814/-, Rs. 14,666/- and Rs. 46,186/-, total Rs. 77,666/-, is payable and for the said amount a cheque was produced on 2.7.2004 which was handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the said respondent, no amount of G.P.F. was deducted and thus nothing is payable on that account. It is further stated that the group insurance of all the employees of the Water Board lapsed in the year 1998 due to nonpayment of premium amount of general insurance and as such no employee has claimed tor ihe same. As regards difference of pay and bonus it is slated that it has not been released by the Stale Government. However, the deponent Chief Executive Officer has undertaken to pay the said amount as soon as it is released by the State Government. As regards difference of pay and bonus it is slated that it has not been released by the Stale Government. However, the deponent Chief Executive Officer has undertaken to pay the said amount as soon as it is released by the State Government. In the supplementary counter affidavit the successor Chief Executive Officer, who claims to have joined on 30th June, 2004, stated that the State Government issued Resolution bearing No. 4159 dated 5.5.1998 whereby the rate of D.A. admissible on account of gratuity payable to the government servant was fixed and the maximum percentage of D.A. was fixed as 97% of the salary. It is further stated that the Administrator of the Corporation decided that out of the said 97% D.A. admissible the employee shall be paid 92% immediately and rest 5% shall be paid after approval of the Adminislrative Department. In support of this the order of the then Administrator has been annexed as Annexure C. Accordingly, it is stated that pursuant to the said policy decision the petitioner was given 92% as D.A. on gratuity and rest 5% is due which shall be paid after complying the formalities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court in the case of Satyendra Nath Rai & anr. V/s. The State of Bihar & Anr. (CWJC No. 3606 of 1999) on consideration of various provisions of Patna Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules framed thereunder which undisputedly also governs Gaya Municipal Corporation, held that the State Government in exercise of power under Rule 43 issued order dated 19th April, 1991 contained in Annexure 2 to the said writ petition that the benefit of increase in pension admissible to the Government servants is also made available to the employees of the local bodies. It is not disputed that in pursuance to the said order the regular employee of the Corporation has been paid 70% of dearness allowance. This Court while indicating that the responsibility to generate fund for meeting the liability is of the Corporation under Chapter VII and the learned counsel for the Corporation failed to show any provision under which there is any liability of the State Government to provide fund for payment of such dues found no justification to deny the benefit of D.A. to the petitioners of the said case at the rate as admissible to the Government employees by the Corporation. This Court also held that the Corporation being their employer was solely responsible for generating fund and to pay the dues of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions as contained in Rules 43 and 44 of the Rules read with Annexure 2 and thus found that the Corporation was responsible for not complying the earlier decision of this Court to pay the entire admissible dues. Learned counsel thus submitted that the plea taken on behalf of the respondent Corporation on the question of admissibility of rate of D.A. is not at all tenable and they are bound to comply the said direction. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that considering the financial crunch prevailing in different Corporation the Slate Government decided to meet 70% of such liability and 30% is to be met by the Corporation until financial position of the Corporation improves. According to the learned counsel the financial position of the Corporation has not yet improved nor the State Government has released 70% so far. Under such circumstances, the Corporation is unable to discharge its liability aforementioned. However, he submitted that this question is being considered by this Court in the case of an employee of Patna Municipal Corporation, namely, Kashi Prasad V/s. Patna Municipal Corporation (M.J. C.No. 1719 of 2002) and as such, this writ petition can be disposed of with the direction that the decision/direction in the said case shall also govern the present case and the respondent shall comply the same as is directed in the said case. 5. This Court in the facts and circumstances aforementioned considers it expedient to dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the decision with respect to rate of dearness allowance and its liability to pay as is given in the case of Kashi Prasad shall also govern the present case.