Baij Nath Yadav @ Baidyanath Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5953 of 2016 ======================================================
1. Baij Nath Yadav @ Baidyanath Yadav, son of Late Mohan Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Yadav Tola, East Madhubani, Purnea, P.S.- K.Hat, District- Purnea.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Patna.
2. The L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga through its Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.
4. B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura through its Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura.
5. The Vice-Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura.
6. The Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga
7. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh For the B.N.M.U : Mr. M.K.Rai Mrs. Vandana Kishore For L.N.M.U Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh For the State Mr. Vijaya Laxmi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 10-08-2017 Heard the parties.
Petitioner was superannuated from service on 30.09.2009 from Purnea College , Purnea but his retrial dues was not paid to him, though, he wrote several letters to the concerned university and other officials.
The State has filed counter affidavit mentioning therein that all the relevant documents of the petitioner are under concerned universities and so far as grants- in -aid is concerned,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5953 of 2016 (3) dt.10-08-2017 2/2 the State has released time to time grant-in-aid to the concerned Universities. L.N.M.U, Darbhanga as well as B.N.M.U, Madhepura have not filed their counter affidavit. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, this writ petition stands disposed of giving direction to the respondent no. 2 to 7 to ensure payment of admitted retrial dues of the petitioner with statutory interest, if any, within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
However, it is also made clear that if the petitioner feels dissatisfied with the payment made to him by the concerned respondents, he may approach this Court in accordance with law. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) N.K/- U