Neelambari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2118 of 2022 ====================================================== 1.

Neelambari Daughter of Triloki Shree Harsh, Resident of Village - Sanhauli, P.S. - Chitragupta Nagar, District - Khagaria. 2.

Rima Kumari, Daughter of Jagdish Mahto, Resident of Village - Manguraha, P.S. - Ramnagar, District - West Champaran.

3.

Satish Kumar, Son of Parmanand Singh, Resident of Village - Aurwan, P.S. - Magadh Medical, District - Gaya.

4.

Pankaj Kumar, Son of Rajendra Prasad Thakur, Resident of Village - Dhusar, P.S. - Tikapatti, District - Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Selection Committee of Guest Faculty / Part Time Teacher, Purnea University, Purnea through its Chairman Cum the Vice - Chancellor. 5.

The Vice - Chancellor, Purnea University, Purnea. 6.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Purnea University, Purnea. 7.

The Purnea University Purnea through its Registrar. 8.

The Registrar, Purnea University, Purnea.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kameshwar Kumar (Gp17) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 25-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Purnea University.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition as the

Patna High Court CWJC No.2118 of 2022(3) dt.25-04-2024 2/2 grievance of the petitioners has already been redressed. He further submits that though the petitioners have joined the service and working as such, but they have been paid only half of their salary.

3. Permission is granted.

4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

5. As per the averments of the petitioners that they have been paid only half of their salary, in my view a new cause of action has arisen for which the petitioners may file a fresh writ petition for redressal of their grievance. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U