IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.222 of 2008 SRI BHAGWAN SINGH, son of Late Chandradeo Choudhary working as Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry, A.S. College, at + P.S. Vikramganj, District Rohtas. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Anjani Kumar Singh, son of not known, Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah through Amjad Ali Khan, son of not known, Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. 4. Rampal Singh, son of not known, Vice- Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. 5. Amjad Ali Khan, son of not known, Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. ---Opp. Parties ----------- 9. 23.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party-University as also the learned counsel for the State. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by this Court on 21st of May, 2007 in C.W.J.C. No.15505 of 2001 and analogous cases, in so far as the case of the petitioner, vide CWJC No.11295 of 2006, is concerned, has not been complied with as the representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid order was not considered and as such the Vice-Chancellor of the opposite party-University has not complied with the order and is thus liable to be proceeded for contempt of this Court. It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner was for payment of the balance of salary which the University has not considered and paid despite the fact that the State Government has provided adequate fund for making such payment. The University instead of making the 2 payment, as a matter of fact, are diverting the fund to some other purpose for which the fund was not provided and this is an act of diversion of fund and financial irregularity. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is still working in A.S. College, Bikramganj (Rohtas) and as such the claim for payment of salary was to be accepted and paid to him. Mr Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-University submits that the claim of the petitioner as per the representation submitted by him was thoroughly considered and disposed of by a detailed reasoned order vide Memo No.Legal/669/08-540/Estab/09 dated 14.08.2009, as contained in Annexure B to the show cause, which was also communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the University has placed the entire order passed on the representation of the petitioner, whereby, upon consideration and for the reasons assigned therein, the claim of the petitioner was not accepted by the University and the representation was accordingly rejected by the aforesaid order. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that the order of this Court having been complied with, this contempt application need not proceed further. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities did not consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to the payment of arrears of difference of salary. It is further submitted that the order, as contained in Annexure B to the show cause, was passed on the basis of the report of the Principal of the concerned College who has a serious bias against the petitioner and thus the 3 order did not reflect the correct consideration of the representation of the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the order of the Apex Court, the petitioner was entitled to similar payment of salary which they have not done. Considering the rival submission of the parties and on perusal of the show case as also the order passed as contained in Annexure B to the show cause, as referred to above, it appears that the order has been passed on the representation of the petitioner and as such, since the order has been complied with, this contempt application need not proceed further. However, as submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid order (Annexure B) is not correct and the petitioner is entitled to receive the balance admissible dues, it will be open for the petitioner to assail the aforesaid order before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. With the above observations, the contempt application is disposed of. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)