Sheo Shankar Sahay v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.886 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14924 of 2014 ====================================================== Sheo Shankar Sahay, Son of Sheo Kumar Sahay, Mohalla- Maulabagh, P.O.- Head Post Office, P.S.-Ara, Nawada, District- Bhojpur at Ara. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Shri R.K. Mahajan, the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. Dr. Azhar Hussain, the Vice Chancellor, Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara.

3. Dr. Manoj Kumar, Registrar, Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara.

4. Shri Sheo Nandan Prasad Sinha, the Finance Officer, Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Petitioner in person For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, G.A.-7 Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC to GA-7 For V.K.S.U. :

Mr. Kinkar Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-08-2018 In compliance of the order dated 09.05.2014 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no. 14924 of 2014 the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have made payment of Rs. 5,15,999/- which has been found payable to the petitioner for the actual work he rendered of 180 days in a year. The petitioner who appears in person submits that the report on the basis of which decision has been taken to pay for 180 days work per year itself is wrong and in fact the petitioner has worked for more days than 180 days. Considering the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction to be invoked in the case of contempt, this Court finds that in view of the directions of the learned Writ Court the University had to

Patna High Court MJC No.886 of 2015(14) dt.16-08-2018 2/2 find out the days of working of the petitioner and then to take steps for sanction of post and the consideration of the case of the petitioner for proper engagement in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the University has submitted that the steps for sanction of post has already been taken by the University and now the matter is pending with the State Government for sanction. The Mandamus of the learned Writ Court was directed to the University and the University has complied with the same. As regards, the honorarium to be paid for the number of days the petitioner had worked, the University has calculated the number of days and paid accordingly. In the given circumstances, if the petitioner has any grievance with respect to the number of days for which he has been paid, he will have liberty to take proper remedy before appropriate Court in accordance with law.

This petition stands disposed of.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/- U