Rajesh Kumar Jha v. Shri A. Mogni,V.C. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1789 of 1998 ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Jha, son of Shri Sushil Jha, Lecturer in Botany, Ranchi College, Ranchi University, residing at Shail Vihar, Near Hill Water Tank, Ranchi Town, District-Ranchi(Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 9928 of 1996). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Shri A. Mogni,Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Post Office, Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga, Pin Code-846004(Respondent No. 2 in CWJC No. 9928/96)

2. Shri V.B. Rai, Principal, Janta Kosi College, Biroul, Post Office Biroul, District Darbhanga, Pin Code-847203(Respondent No. 4 in CWJC No. 9928/96)

3. The State of Bihar(Respondent No. 1 in CWJC No. 9928/96) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.Jha Mr. R.K.Shukla For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc7) Mr. Navaniti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 23-05-2017 M.J.C. No. 1789 of 1998 has been filed inter alia contending that an order passed on 03.11.1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 9928 of 1996 has not been complied with.

This application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. The application is pending since 1998. The Writ Petition was disposed of directing the University to enquire through a competent Officer under the supervision of the Vice

Patna High Court MJC No.1789 of 1998 (5) dt.23-05-2017 2/3 Chancellor with regard to the working of the petitioner for the period from 9th of February, 1990 to 14th of December, 1990, thereafter take action for payment of salary and settle all his claims for various periods in accordance with law. Respondents initially filed a show cause and communicated that all the dues payable to the petitioner as per his entitlement have been paid and with regard to the enquiry, a competent Officer has been appointed to conduct enquiry. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit to the show cause and contended that the claim has not been properly settled and the enquiry has also not been held. However, respondent No. 1 thereafter filed additional supplementary affidavit on 06.09.2000 which goes to show that enquiry was conducted and enquiry report vide Annexure-A has been filed which goes to show that certain amount has been paid to the petitioner and after detailed enquiry the issue has been decided by the competent Officer of the University.

That being so, now after so many years i.e. 19 years, it is not proper to proceed with the contempt application. In case, the petitioner has any grievance still subsisting after the enquiry conducted and the action taken, the petitioner shall have liberty to assail the same in accordance with

Patna High Court MJC No.1789 of 1998 (5) dt.23-05-2017 3/3 law. No case is made out to proceed with the contempt. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Shageer/- U