IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3711 of 2009 PRAKASH KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . ----------- 5 22.6.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the Magadh University, Bodh Gaya as well as Counsel for the State. Initially this contempt application was filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against Opposite party No.2 the Principal, B.D. Evening College, Patna for his willful disobedience to the order passed in CWJC No. 9590 of 2009. By this order a direction has been issued to the respondent Universities and its authorities for payment of arrears of salary as well as current salary to the petitioner. During the pendency of the contempt application three orders were passed by the authorities, whereby the petitioner was restrained from discharging his duties. All three orders were challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 14462 of 2009 and by order dated 8.1.2010 operations of all three orders, whereby petitioner was restrained from discharging the duties were stayed. However the order passed in CWJC No. 9590 of 2009 and CWJC No. 14462 of 2009 were 2 considered by the Full Bench in LPA No. 1304 of 2009 along with other similar Letters Patent Appeals ( 2010(2) PLJR 650) and by order dated 11.3.2010 interim order dated 26.8.2009 and 8.1.2010 passed in CWJC No. 9590 of 2009 as well as CWJC No. 14462 of 2009 stood merged in final order passed by the Full Bench on 11.3.2010, whereby the Full Bench directed the university authorities to make payment of current salary to those employees who are working, pending decision of the two member commission, constituted for examining the claim of Teaching employees as well as non teaching employees of the Fourth Phase Colleges in the State of Bihar. A show cause has been filed on behalf of Opposite party no.2 stating that the orders passed in both the writ applications have already been quashed and as such any ad-interim order passed in those writ applications have also merged with the final order passed by the Full Bench. Since, petitioner is not working he is not entitled for current salary. Considering the cause shown, the contempt proceeding is dropped. A. Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)