Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. Dr. D.K. Yadav, Registrar, Magadh University, Gaya And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1874 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22240 of 2012 ====================================================== Smt. Bhagwati Devi, wife of Late Shaligram Upadhyay, resident of Tarka Nala, Main Road, Buxar, P.O., P.S.- Buxar, District- Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Dr. D.K. Yadav, Registrar, Magadh University at Bodh Gaya, Gaya.

2. Prof. Istiyak Ahmad, Vice Chancellor, Magadh University at Bodh Gaya, Gaya

3. Dr. Chandrashekhar Saha, Principal, Shri Maharshi Vishwamitra College, Buxar, P.O., P.S. and District- Buxar

4. Sri Manoj Kumar, Registrar, Vir Kuer Singh University, Ara, District Bhojpur.

5. Prof. Azahar Hussain, Vice Chancellor, Vir Kuer Singh University, Ara, District Bhojpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 5.

23-11-2015 The writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 22240/2012 was disposed of on 22.08.2013, giving a direction to the University to revise pensions payable and ensure its payment within three weeks. University was also directed to give proper account understandable to a common person in support thereof. When this direction was not complied with, the present application initiating contempt was filed. The Magadh University has filed a show cause treating as per Annexure - A, the revision as made, which are substantial. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating that there are mistakes in calculations.

In my view, the University, at the first instance, must pay the entire amount as admitted by Annexure - A, as per its revised calculations, if not already paid, within one month from today, the responsibility of which would be on the Registrar and no excuse on

Patna High Court MJC No.1874 of 2014 (5) dt.23-11-2015 any count would be accepted by the Court. With regard to the difference as being alleged by petitioners concerned, the petitioner is given liberty to make a detailed representation to the Finance Controller of the University in this regards. The Finance Controller is obliged to look into the matter and pass detailed order either accepting the objection in part or full or rejecting them. The reasons, in support thereof, must also be given. This exercise, the Finance Controller, would complete within one month of receiving the said representation. Petitioner would have the remedies against that order as she may be advised.

With this observation and direction, this application stands disposed of.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) Rajeev/- U