Alakh Narayan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court MJC No.363 of 2015 (7) dt.07-02-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.363 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6874 of 2012 ====================================================== Alakh Narayan Kumar Son of Late Gagan Deo Kumar Resident of Amar Chuthani, P.S Patrahi, P.S. Muffasil, District Motihari (East Champaran). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Rajnish Kumar Mahajan, the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, the Joint Secretary, Higher Education Department, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

3. Sri Pandit Plande, the Vice Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

4. Sri Viveka Nand Shukla, the Registrar, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

5. Sri Binod Sah, the Finance Officer, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

6. Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh, the Principal, S.N.S. College, Motihari. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devi Das Srivastava, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, G.P. 17 Mr. Arbind Kumar, AC to GP 17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 07-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

A show cause has been filed by the University in which they have brought on record Annexure- "A" to the show cause. The same clearly reveals that the petitioner has been given similar treatment and his pay fixation has been made in anticipation of the approval of the Statutory Pay Fixation

Patna High Court MJC No.363 of 2015 (7) dt.07-02-2018 Committee.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date from which fixation has been made is not clear from the said order.

However, in view of the specific direction of the writ Court and that the petitioner has been given same treatment as the petitioner of C.W.J.C. NO. 12828 of 2006, no further case under contempt is made out.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise any other grievance, if tenable under law.

(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U