Dr. Narendra Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.825 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7140 of 2013 ====================================================== Dr. Narendra Kumar Yadav, Son Of Late Ghonghai Prasad Yadav, Resident Of Village / Mohalla - Jurawan Singh Path Naka No. 3, P.S. Darbhanga Town, District - Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. R. K. Mahajan, the Principal Secretary Higher Education Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Dr. Saket Kushwaha, the Vice Chancellor L. N. M. University Darbhanga.

4. Ajit Kumar Singh, the Registrar L. N. M. University Darbhanga.

5. Keshav Kumar, the Finance Officer L. N. M. University Darbhanga.

6. Dr. Mustaq Ahmad, The Principal Marwari College Darbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Binita Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 12-01-2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that on 18.07.2014, the writ petition was disposed of with the following order:- "Petitioner raises a grievance of his due arrears of salary with the University.

Writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Vice Chancellor of the University in this regard, who shall consider the same, shall get necessary reports from the concerned authorities and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within two months from the date of filing of representation by the petitioner." From the aforesaid order, it is clear that only innocuous

Patna High Court MJC No.825 of 2015(4) dt.12-01-2018 2/2 direction issued was that the Vice Chancellor of the University shall consider the representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

From the show cause which has been brought on record, it is seen that the University vide Annexure-B dated 12.08.2016 has decided the representation, determined the dues payable to the petitioner and paid the aforesaid amount. Now, the petitioner is disputing the payment made and says that certain further amount is to be paid.

If that be so, the petitioner should file a fresh proceeding before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if aggrieved. Finding no indulgence to be made into the matter, the application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Sunil/- U