Kailas Prasad @ Kailash Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Mr. R. K. Mahajan, The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2641 of 2017 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4727 of 2011 ====================================================== Kailas Prasad @ Kailash Prasad Son of Late Haricharan Prasad @ Late Haricharya Prasad, Resident of Village- Rasbagh, P.O.- Ekdanga, P.S.- Belchhi, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Through Mr. R. K. Mahajan, The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development 2.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, The Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Magadh University, Bodh Gaya through its Registrar Dr. M.K. Shastri. 4.

Dr. Kamar Hasan, The Vice Chancellor Magadha University, Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya.

5.

Dr. M.K. Shastri, The Registrar, Magadha University, Bodh Gaya, DistrictGaya. 6.

Patliputra University through its Registrar, Patna Distt. Patna Namely Carnol Manoj @ M.K. Mishra 7.

The Principal Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, College Bakhtiyarpur Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey - Aag 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-01-2023 From the perusal of the supplementary show cause reply filed on behalf of the opposite parties no. 3 to 5, it appears that order of this Court, violation of which has been alleged in the present contempt application, has been substantially complied with and payment to the tune of Rs. 19,80,277/- has been paid to the petitioner against arrears.

A rejoinder has been filed to the said show cause reply

Patna High Court MJC No.2641 of 2017(22) dt.25-01-2023 2/2 by the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner is entitled to more amount than what has been paid. According to him a sum of Rs. 1,60,428/- has not been paid. The petitioner has explained how the said amount of Rs. 1,60,428/- is still payable to the petitioner in paragraph 3 of his rejoinder.

Since, this Court's order has been substantially complied with, I am of the view that disobedience of this Court's order cannot be said to be deliberate and wilful. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach competent authority raising his claim as regards the rest of the amount which according to him is payable to him.

Learned counsel for the University assured this Court that, if the petitioner makes such representation the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously.

This contempt proceeding stands dropped.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) anand/- U