Amar Nath Jha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2737 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6833 of 2022 ====================================================== Amar Nath Jha Son of Late Shiv Kant Jha, resident of Village-Godhiya, Police Station-Sadar Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Sri K.K. Pathak, Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Dr. Rekha Kumari, Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Sri Shashi Nath Jha, Vice-Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 5.

Sri Dina Nath Sah, Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

6.

Sri Jai Kishore Choudhary, Finance Officer, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satish Chandra Jha 3, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Shankar Thakur, AC to GP-27.

For the University :

Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-02-2025 Heard Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Shankar Thakur, learned AC to GP-27 for the State and Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the University.

2. From perusal of the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 & 6, it appears that from time to time the University has paid to the petitioner a total sum of Rs.20,41,136/- and further difference of salary amounting to

Patna High Court MJC No.2737 of 2023(4) dt.14-02-2025 2/2 Rs.1,39,935/-. The said fact has been given in detail in Para-6 of the show cause and the said fact has also been admitted by the petitioner in Para-2 of the reply to the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 to 6, however, as per the petitioner's calculation a sum of Rs. 36, 39, 850/- is still due which is required to be paid by the opposite parties.

3. Considering the fact that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs. 20,41,136/- as per the University's calculation, I find that in contempt jurisdiction, I can't go into the legality of the entire payment made to the petitioner which he has disputed.

4. The petitioner may approach the concerned authority for any amount which is still required to be paid in accordance with law.

5. The present contempt petition stands disposed of. (Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U