Kumkum Rani v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 3925 of 2012 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19027 of 2008 ====================================================== Smt. Kumkum Rani, aged about 61 years, Wife of Shri Sooraj Dev Narain Srivastava, Resident of Kamta Singh Lane, East Boring Canal Road, P.S. Budha Colony, District - Patna At Present Posted as Lecturer, Department of Hindi, J.N.L. College, Khagaul, Magadh University, Bodh - Gaya, Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Shri Devanand Kuer, Son of not known to he Petitioner, Chancellor of Universities, Magadh University, Bodh - Gaya, Gaya. 3.

Shri Anjani Kumar Singh, Son of not known to the Petitioner, Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Higher Education, Goveernment of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Shri Sita Ram Singh Son of not known to the Petitioner, Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

Shri Dr. Arun Kumar Son of not knopwn to the Petitioner, Vice - Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Gaya.

6.

Shri Dr. D. K. Yadav, Son of not known to the Petitioner, Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Gaya.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the State :

Mr. Kumar Pankaj, Advocate for the University :

Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-08-2019 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State and Magadh University (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') have assisted the Court.

Patna High Court MJC No.3925 of 2012 dt.05-08-2019 2/2

2. The present application has been filed alleging noncompliance of the order dated 14.10.2011 passed in CWJC No. 19027 of 2008.

3. The application was filed in the year 2012. However, the University preferred LPA No. 1208 of 2014 which, by order dated 20.04.2017, was dismissed holding that the order of the writ Court dated 14.10.2011 has been more or less complied in toto and only certain aspects of payment is subsisting but majority part of the entitlement has already been released in favour of the petitioner. The Court had further observed for letting the matter rest.

4. In view thereof, when the Division Bench had observed that the matter should rest after finding that more or less the order of the Court dated 14.10.2011 had been complied in toto, the Court finds that nothing further survives in the present application.

5. Accordingly, the same stands disposed off. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T