IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1695 of 2008 1. RAJENDER BHAGAT, son of Late Laxmi Narayan Bhagat, resident of Mohalla Kotwali Chowk, Naka No.5, P.S. Town, District Darbhanga. 2. Chandrabali Thakur, son of late Piare Thakur, resident of Village Bajidpur, P.S. Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga. 3. Ram Sewak Mandal, son of Late Jeebach Mandal, resident of Village Navtolia Thalwara, P.S. A.P.M., District Darbhanga. 4. Kashinath Mishra, son of Late Shivdev Mishra, resident of Village Haripur Maltola, P.S. Kaluahi, District Madhubani. ---Petitioners Versus 1. MISHRILAL THAKUR, Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 2. Naresh Jha, Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 3. K.K. Pathak, H.R.D., New Secretariat, Patna through the State of Bihar. ---Opp. Parties ----------- 9. 19.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party-University. A show cause dated 24th of December, 2009 has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 and subsequently another show cause on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 has been filed on 28th of April, 2010 after serving the copies of the aforesaid show cause on the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that on perusal of the show cause dated 24th of December, 2009 filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, it would appear that the University upon considering the claims of the petitioners found the total amount payable was Rs.5,55,851/- whereas in the second show cause filed on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 on 28th of April, 2010, the 2 amount found payable was Rs.3,11,626/- and, as such, the University did not comply with the order of this Court with respect to the admissible payments. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although after availing time twice for filing the reply, the same could not be filed. Learned counsel appearing for the University submits that on perusal of the show cause dated 24th of December, 2009, it would appear that the amount indicated for payment was submitted to the final auditing by the Auditors deputed by the State Government and their report is still awaited as stated in paragraph 4 of the said show cause. Learned counsel for the University, with reference to paragraph 3 of the show cause filed on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 on 28th of April, 2010, submitted that after the Auditors examined the claims of each of the petitioners, a sum of Rs.3,11,626/-, which was found payable against the dues of all the four petitioners indicating their separate entitlements, was released for payment. Considering the submissions of the parties and the show cause, this Court finds that the action of the opposite party- University could not be held to be contempt of this Court. Accordingly, the contempt application is dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)