IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1572 of 2009 Nawin Chandra Roy, son of Bhagat Prasad Rai, R/o Mohalla Shivpuri, Damuchak, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, Distt. Muzaffarpur, presently working as Reader, Department of Philosophy MPS Science College, Muzaffarpur. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Anjani Kumar Singh, the Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Dr. Rajdeo Singh, the Vice Chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 3. Sri Ashok Kumar Shrivastava, the Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 4. Mr. Lala Shiv Kumar, the Finance Officer, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. --------- Contemnor/Opposite Parties ----------- 3 12.01.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also the University, this Court is satisfied that the direction given in the order of this Court dated 8.5.2008 in CWJC No. 10083 of 2005 was not carried out by the officials of the State of Bihar in a prompt manner. The petitioner had admittedly filed his representation on 1.9.2008, but the first communication on the subject was made by the Special Secretary to the Human Resources Development Department on 9.11.2010 asking the petitioner to appear for hearing with all his evidence on 22.11.2010. Counsel for the petitioner has produced the original envelop from which it appears that the said letter 2 dated 9.11.2010 was sent by registered post only on 12.11.2010, whereafter, the same was served on the petitioner on 23.11.2010. By this time, the petitioner had already filed this contempt application on 8.5.2009 and, therefore, if the petitioner has not thereafter appeared, the authority of the State Government ought to have sought extension of time for passing a fresh order as directed in the order dated 8.5.2008. Nonetheless, the authority of the University has filed show-cause, wherein, it has been shown that certain admissible payment to the tune of Rs. 4,65,364/- has already been paid to the petitioner. Such amount, in fact, as per the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, is not sufficient, inasmuch as, the claim of the petitioner from the year 1982 to 1995 has not at all been looked into and redressed. One thing, however, is clear that the opposite parties did not intend to commit contempt and have partly carried out the order. Therefore, this Court would give one more indulgence to the opposite party to 3 ensure effective and complete compliance of the order of this Court dated 8.5.2008 within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In order to shorten this aspect, this Court would direct the petitioner to appear before the Special Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department on 24th January, 2011 and the said Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department, thereafter, will fix a firm date for hearing of both the petitioner and the University so that the representation of the petitioner filed on 1.9.2008 is disposed of within the aforementioned time limit. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)