The Vice-Chancellor, v. Uday Raj,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.59 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14464 of 2014 ====================================================== 1.

The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 2.

The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

3.

The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Uday Raj, S/O- Late janeshwar Singh, Resident of Village and P.O.- Lari, P.S.- Kurtha, District- Arwal, the retired Librarian, S.B.A.N. College, Darheta- Lari, P.O.- Lari, District- Arwal.

2.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, AC to AAG-15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 09-09-2022 The petitioners by way of this review petition seeks review of an order passed on 30.08.2018.

A pertinent question was asked to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner with regard to genesis of document, Annexure-2, placed on record on the original writ petition to which he has shown a complete ignorance. However, from the perusal of Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it reveals that Annexure-2 is a Judgment passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7515 of 2009, decided on 02.05.2011.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.59 of 2020(7) dt.09-09-2022 2/2 The High Court vide order dated 30.08.2018 that is the order under review has only directed to pay salary in terms of the order contained in Annexure-2 as Librarian and if the said payment is not made within a period of three months, it will carry interest @ 9% till the date of actual payment and the same shall be recovered from the Officers of the University, as determined by the Vice-Chancellor.

The said order passed by the Court, therefore, does not warrant any interference. The review petition is wholly frivolous and appears to have been filed to delay the entire process and avoid compliance. Accordingly, it is dismissed with the costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/ sachin Item No. 13 U