Dr.Sudisht Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8518 of 2011 =========================================================== Dr. Sudisht Kumar, Son of Late Kamleshwari Prasad Yadav, resident of village and P.O. Sahugarh. 2 Tola Bhagwanpur, P.S. Madhepura, District Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura through its Registrar.

4. The Vice-Chancellor, B.N.Mandal University Laloo Nagar, Madhepura.

5. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, AC to AG For the University : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-06-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

2. Considering the fact that the petitioner's grievance is now confined to salary/wages for the period petitioner has worked, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to University to examine the record as to the claim of the petitioner that petitioner has regularly discharged the duty as ad-hoc teacher in terms of the direction of the Apex Court. The respondent University is required to work out the claim of the petitioner for payment of remuneration and ensure payment there of within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8518 of 2011 dt.19-06-2018 2/2

3. The other claim with regard to regularization is concerned, learned counsel submits that the matter is pending before same committee and as such he is not pressing that issue in the present writ proceeding.

4.

Learned counsel submits that similarly circumstanced one Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh has been paid the remuneration/salary and as such the University has no difficulty in considering the payment to the petitioner on the basis of work rendered by the petitioner.

5. The factual enquiry as to the claim of the petitioner whether the petitioner has worked or not is to be completed by the respondent University within a period of three months from today and if it is found that the petitioner has not been paid remuneration, and the petitioner has actually worked, the respondent University will ensure payment of such remuneration after verification of the record and calculation of remuneration.

6. With the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 26.06.2018 Transmission Date