IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1096 of 2010 1. DR. RAAGEEVA BIMAL, S/O SHRI BIMALDEO SINHA, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, BABASAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 2. DR. SHEOJEE SINGH, S/O SHRI AMBIKA SINGH, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BABASAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. DR. BHOJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE KHEYALI SINGH, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, L.S. COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. DR. CHANDRASHAKHAR RAI, S/O SHRI SHYAM BIHARI RAI, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, R.D.S. COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. DR. BINITA VERMA, W/O SHASHI SHEKHAR SINHA, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, M.D.D.M. COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR. 6. DR. JAIKANT SINGH, S/O SHIV SHANKAR SINGH, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF BHOJPURI, L.S.COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MR. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH, THE COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. MR. SHYAM NARAIN KUWAR, THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DR. RAJDEO SINGH, THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, BABA SAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. DR. BIBASH YADAV, THE REGISTRAR, BABA SAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 6. MR.LALA SHEONATH PRASAD VERMA, THE FINANCE OFFICER, BABA SAHEB BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR.…OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3 20.07.2011 In respect of petitioner no.1, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has been paid less amount than what he was entitled. However, he submits that the less payment was made to the petitioner 2 on the basis of wrong fixation of pay scale by the audit team. He refers to an order of this Court passed in the case of Dr. Binod Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Bihar [2010 (4) PLJR 432] and submits that the audit team has no jurisdiction to reduce or change the pay scale granted by the Pay Fixation Committee. He submits that, it was only the Pay Fixation Committee which has the authority to revise or recall its earlier order. Learned counsel for the petitioners may be right, but this issue cannot be adjudicated in a contempt jurisdiction. Petitioner has a liberty to challenge the said action of the University in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, it is stated in the supplementary show cause filed today that the payment in respect of him is under process. In respect of rest of the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners accepts that they have received 3 their payment. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to proceed in the matter further. The MJC application is disposed of. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)