Dr. K.S. Chauhan v. The Rajendra Agricultural University And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3100 of 2014 ====================================================== Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Former Vice - Chancellor, R.A.U., Pusa S/O Late Ratan Singh R/O 318 - B, Shivajee Stadium Chowk, Model Town, Panipat ( Haryana ) 132103.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Rajendra Agricultural University, through its Registrar having Office at Pusa, Samastipur

2. The Vice - Chancellor, Rau, Pusa

3. The Comptroller, Rau, Pusa

4. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sri Niwas Jha For the Respondent/s : AC to Gp-31 Mr. R.K.Giri ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

09-01-2015 Heard the parties.

The petitioner, who retired in the year 1996 as ViceChancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, has approached this Court, with a prayer to quash O.O.No. 424/RAU., Pusa dated 13th September, 2006. The petitioner has further prayed for directing the respondents to make payment of interest on retiral dues. By order dated 13th September, 2006 i.e. Annexure '1' to the petitioner, the Controller of Rajendra Agricultural University, in compliance with the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10059 of 2004, had examined the representation of the petitioner and disposed it of. The said communication has

Patna High Court CWJC No.3100 of 2014 (2) dt.09-01-2015 2/2 been assailed by the petitioner by filing the present petition, which was filed in the month of February, 2014. Now, by way of making a prayer for setting aside the communication of 2006, the petitioner makes a prayer for directing the respondents to make payment of interest on the retiral dues.

Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that after the order in the earlier writ petition, all retiral dues of the petitioner have already been paid, but now he is raising a dispute of interest.

Once, in compliance with the order of the writ court, the competent authority has passed a reasoned order, redressing the grievance of the petitioner long back in the year 2006, the petitioner may not be allowed to raise any claim after about eight years from the date of such order. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere with the matter.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay/- U