Sudhir Kumar Gokul v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3034 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8128 of 2012 ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar Gokul Son Of Late Badri Narayan Singh Resident Of At + P.O. Barail P.S. Supaul District Supaul (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Secretary, Higher Education Govt. Of Bihar, Patna Mr. Amarjeet Sinha
2. B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura, Through Registrar, Mr. Vishwanath Viveka
3. The Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar Madhepura. Mr. R.N. Mishra
4. The Registrar B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura Mr. Vishwanath Viveka
5. The Finance Officer, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-03-2015 None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsels appearing for B.N.Mandal University are present. Learned counsel for B.N.Mandal University submits that in compliance of the order dated 27.04.2014 passed in C.W.J.C.No.8128 and other analogous cases, the matter regarding the claim of arrear salary from 20.07.1995 to December, 2005, the matter was referred to the Government auditor deputed in the University office to examine the claim. The claim of the petitioner was found admissible/ payable for total Rs. 07.07,211/- (Rs.
Patna High Court MJC No.3034 of 2013 (3) dt.02-03-2015 2/2 Seven lacs ninety seven thousand two hundred eleven only) as per report dated 14.03.2013 of the auditor with the benefits of pay of Rs. 14,940/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000/- 18,300/- revised with effect from 01.01.1996 as admissible to a Reader on completion of five years of service as Reader on or after 01.01.1996. The fund was sent to the College, which would appear from Annexure- A to the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2,3,4 and 5.
Since the order of the Writ Court, in respect to the petitioner, has already been complied with , as detailed in show cause, no further action is required to be taken against the opposite party.
Accordingly, this contempt application is disposed of. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) singh/- U