Dr. Waquar Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.329 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9294 of 2022 ====================================================== Dr. Waquar Ahmad, Son of Late Md. Salesh, Resident of Mohalla- Road No. 4, Nagmatia Colony, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

Mr. Deepak Kumar, the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the Secretary, Department of Education (Higher), Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Dr. K.C. Sinha, the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 5.

Dr. Ravi Prakash Babloo, The Registrar of the Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

6.

Vijay Kishore Mishra, the Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 7.

Dr. Deepak Kumar, the Principal, Gaya College, Gaya. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Virendra Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Binita Singh, SC-28 Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, AC to SC- 28 For the Magadh University :

Mr. Amitabh Sohan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-10-2023 Heard Mr. Virendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Amitabh Sohan, learned counsel for the Magadh University.

2. In compliance to the order of this Court, showcause affidavits have been filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 to 6. With reference thereto, learned counsel for the University submits that all the admissible retiral dues of the petitioner have

Patna High Court MJC No.329 of 2023(12) dt.13-10-2023 2/2 already been extended to him. So far as the salary for the period December, 2019 to 31.01.2022 is concerned, since the petitioner has never discharged the duties after revocation of his suspension on 29.11.2019, thus he is not entitled to the salary for the said period. It has further been clarified that since the petitioner has not been paid the salary for the said period, hence there is no question of deduction of the subscription of Provident Fund from the salary of the petitioner.

3. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the opposite party nos. 4 to 6, this Court is satisfied that the order of this Court under contempt stands fully complied with.

4. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed of.

5. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner has any grievance, he is at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.

(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U