IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2817 of 2007 DR. MANINDRA KUMAR SINGH, son of Late Basudev Singh,Lecturer in Department of Economics, Madan Ahilya College, At + P.S. Navgachhia, Distt- Bhagalpur, resident of Village Jamunia, P.S. Sahu Parbatta (Navgachhia), Distt. Bhagalpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Anjani Kumar Singh, son of not known, Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar. 3. The Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 4. Dr. Prema Jha, W/O not known, Vice- Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 5. Dr. Bijay Kant Das, son of not known, Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. ---Opp. Parties ----------- 18. 30.10.2009 A reply to the show cause has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Swaraj Kumar Ghose, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party-University as well as the learned A.C. to AAG 9 appearing for the State. The complain of the petitioner is that the authorities of the opposite party-University have not complied with the order dated 21.5.2007 of this Court passed in CWJC No.15505 of 2001 and analogous cases. The petitioner’s writ application, vide CWJC No.4831 of 2006, was also disposed of along with the aforesaid batch of cases. It is submitted that upon hearing the aforesaid cases, this Court directed the concerned petitioners to file representation with 2 regard to their claims before the authorities of the University. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed a representation stating the details of his claims, which, upon consideration, was found admissible to the tune of Rs.8,86,337/- inclusive of the interest over the unpaid claims. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for payment of the aforesaid amount, the University sent the requisition to the State Government as per its letter no.ACC/11063 dated 23.8.2007. The University received the amount from the State Government for making the payment. On receipt of the amount, the petitioner was paid the amount. However, interest to the tune of Rs.2,47,000/- have not been paid. It is further submitted that in the show cause on behalf of opposite parties no.3 to 5 filed by the University on 7th of March, 2008, they have admitted that the amount of interest is also payable. Later, a second supplementary show cause on behalf of opposite parties no. 3 to 5 have been filed on 16th of July, 2008 annexing a copy of the reasoned order contained in Memo No.B/8434-36 dated 15th of July, 2008, which was passed disposing of the representation of the petitioner filed pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 21.5.2007. The University, while disposing of the representation, has held that the petitioner is not entitled to get interest over the unpaid salary and in the said order, the earlier requisition sent the State Government as per the letter dated 23rd August, 2007, as contained in Annexure 3, has been recalled. The learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, submitted that this action of opposite party-University amounts to contempt of this Court as they have willfully done so and as such they are liable to 3 be punished. Besides, it is further submitted that even on perusal of the letter dated 2.6.2008 sent by the University to the State Government, as contained in Annexure 4 to the reply to the show cause, it would appear that the claim of the petitioner is correct and as such, they have sought money from the State Government for making the payment. Mr Ghose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party-University, on the other hand, submits that the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner is not the matter to be considered in this proceeding. It is submitted that as per the order of this Court, the opposite party-University is required to pass a reasoned order considering the claims of the petitioner and the same has been considered and the representation filed by the petitioner on 21.6.2007 followed by another representation dated 21.9.2007 have been considered and disposed of by a reasoned order, as contained in Memo No.B/8434-36 dated 15.7.2008, vide Annexure A to the show cause filed on behalf of opposite parties no.3 to 5 on 16th July, 2008 and as such, the order having been fully complied with, this contempt need not proceed further. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the University having received the money, either it should be paid to the concerned employees, including the petitioner, or the money should be refunded back to the State and the University has no business to keep this money. Considering the submissions of the parties, it appears 4 that the University has passed the reasoned order dated 15.7.2008, as contained in Annexure A, whereby considering the representations the authorities have held that the petitioner is not entitled to get interest on unpaid salary. Since the reasoned order has been passed on the representations of the petitioner, I find that the contempt application need not proceed further. The contempt application is, thus, dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proposes to challenge the aforesaid reasoned order dated 15.7.2008, as contained in Annexure A, before an appropriate forum in accordance with law. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner challenges the said order dated 15.7.2008, the same will be considered as per law. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)