Bhubneshwar Singh v. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University Through Its Vice Chancellor Darbhanga And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.126 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8421 of 2011 ====================================================== Bhubneshwar Singh, son of Palakdhari Singh, resident of village and post office Bihat, Mansnadpur, Police Station Barauni, District Begusarai .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University Through Its Vice Chancellor Darbhanga

2. Sri Sakat Kumar Kushwaha, Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga

3. Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga

4. Sri Uttamlal Thakur, Finance Officer, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga

5. Sri Tapan Kumar Shandilya, Principal, Ganest Dutt College, Begusarai

6. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner -cum- Secretary, namely, M. K. Raje, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey For the State : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha For L.N.M. University : Ms. Binita Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-09-2016 Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.

After having seen the supplementary show cause reply filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, I am of the view that no case of deliberate disobedience of this Court's order, dated 24.09.2014, passed in CWJC No. 8421 of 2011, is made out.

It has been stated in the show cause reply filed

Patna High Court MJC No.126 of 2016 (3) dt.07-09-2016 2/2 today that the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, intends to deduct a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month from the dearness allowance, payable to the petitioner, on account of the excess payment having been made to him to the tune of Rs. 3,10,587/-.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision of the University to deduct the said amount is arbitrary and whimsical.

The said plea of the petitioner cannot be gone into in the present contempt proceeding.

It will be open to the petitioner to question the decision of the University to deduct the said amount in appropriate proceeding.

This application stands disposed of.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T X