Prof.. Dr. Usha Singh v. The Patna University, Patna And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2675 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17052 of 2007 ====================================================== Prof.. (Dr.) Usha Singh, wife of Late Professor (Dr.) M.K.Singh, resident of House No. 246, Road No.7, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Kadamkuan, Town and District Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Patna University, Patna through its Registrar, namely, Mr. B.Kr.Yadav

2. The Vice-Chancellor, Patna University, Patna, namely, Mr. U.K.Sinha

3. The Finance Officer, Patna University, Patna, namely, Mr. A.K.Singh

4. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, namely, Mr. Amarjeet Sinha

5. The Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, namely, Dr. Sita Ram Singh .... .... Opp. Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushattam Kr. Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Singh, AC to AAG 11 For the Patna University : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 18-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the Patna University and for the State. The contempt application has been filed claiming disobedience of the order dated 11.9.2012 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 17052 of 2007.

The direction in the said order was two fold, i.e., to consider and pay the remaining leave encashment amount to the petitioner for the period of 180 days. The other direction was for the authorities to consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioner with regard to arrears of pension for different periods for which the petitioner was directed to file a detailed representation.

In the show cause and the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the University it is stated that the leave encashment

Patna High Court MJC No.2675 of 2013 (8) dt.18-10-2016 amount has been paid, which is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and it is further stated that the arrears of pension have also been paid and the order dated 2.8.2016 has been passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University with regard to the representation of the petitioner indicating therein the payment of the entire difference of pension arrears.

In the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the order under contempt has been complied with. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed.

It is, however, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there appear to be some errors in the calculation made by the University resulting in variation to the extent of approximately Rs.2,44,000/- and odd for which the petitioner may be permitted to approach the University authorities. The petitioner is permitted to do so and in case the petitioner produces detailed account then the authorities of the University shall look into the same and if it is found that petitioner is entitled to any further amount, the same may be paid to the petitioner forthwith.

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) spal/- U