Dr. Dasharath Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1949 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10064 of 2019 ====================================================== Dr. Dasharath Prasad Yadav Son of Late Banarasi Prasad Yadav, Resident of Mohallah- Raj Nagar, Khagaul Road, Danapur, Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Patna.

2.

Sri K.K. Pathak , the Secretary, Department of Education, Patna. 3.

Mr. Shashi Pratap Sah, The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Gaya. 4.

Mr. Deepak Kumar, the Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 5.

Mr. Sunil Kumar, the Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 6.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the Vice Chancellor, Patliputra University, Patna. 7.

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, the Registrar, Patliputra University, Patna. 8.

Mr. Ashok Kumar, the Principal, Kisan College, Sohsarai, Nalanda. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Virendra Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Madan Jeet Kumar (Gp20) For the Magadh University :

Mr. Harsh Singh, Adv.

For the PPU :

Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 16-01-2026 Ultimately, this Court had in its earlier order noticed that the Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya has passed a reasoned order dated 11.8.2025, in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 6.5.2019, passed in CWJC No. 10064 of 2019, admitting that a sum of Rs. 3,13,360/- is payable to the petitioner. Hence, this Court, vide order dated 22.8.2025 had directed the Magadh University and the Government to sort out the matter and make payment of the said amount, pursuant

Patna High Court MJC No.1949 of 2023(10) dt.16-01-2026 2/2 whereof, the said amount of Rs. 3,13,360/- has stood paid to the petitioner. However, it has transpired subsequently that actually a sum of Rs. 6,24,827/- is required to be paid to the petitioner. 2.

In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, agitating his grievances regarding non-payment of the balance amount, which is due to be paid to the petitioner by the opposite parties. Liberty, so sought, is granted. 3.

Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed off.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/- U