IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1688 of 2008 PUSPA SHARMA, aged about 56 years, wife of Late Vijay Narayan Sharma, resident of Mohalla- Sarvodaya Nagar, P. S.- Begusarai (Town), District- Begusarai… Petitioner. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Sri Anjani Kumar Singh Secretary, High Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Dr. Mishri Lal Thakur, the Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Bhawan, Darbhanga. 3. Sri Naresh Kumar Jha, the Registrar, L. N. Mithila University, Kameshwar Bhawan, Darbhanga. 4. Sri Udai Chandra Jha, the Finance Officer, L. N. Mithila University, Kameshwar Bhawan, Darbhanga. 5. Sri Valmiki Prasad Singh Professor-in-charge, G. D. College, Begusarai. .. Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 30.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for Lalit Narayan Mithila University as also counsel for the State. The petitioner complains violation of the operative operation of the order of this court dated 17.4.2006 which reads as follows:- “… Having heard learned counsel for the party and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners shall be well advised to represent before Respondent No. 3 for the redressal of his grievance. In case such a representation is filed within six weeks from today respondent no. 3, Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga shall take decision on the representation within three months from the date of its filing. If on consideration of the representation any amount is found due to the 2 petitioners, same shall be paid to them within the time stipulated above. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion in regard to the entitlement of the petitioners and that shall be decided by respondent no. 3 abovenamed in accordance with law.” Opposite party have filed today a show-cause reply stating therein that the decision on the representation of the petitioner has been taken vide order dated 18.3.2010 as contained in Annexure –A to the show-cause reply whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs.8,14,976/- has been found payable to the petitioner both on the head of pre- retiral and post retrial dues of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner however would seriously contend that no order has been passed on the representation filed by the petitioner and the amount which has been paid needs to be verified in the light of the facts mentioned in the show-cause reply filed today. In the opinion of this court, there would be no scope for continuing with the contempt proceedings inasmuch as this court had not quantified the amount nor it had asked for passing any order on the representation rather the direction was confined to taking a decision on the representation. From the order contained in Annexure- 3 A it would be clear that such decision has been taken and necessary admitted dues has also been extended to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this court would not find any reason to continue with the contempt proceeding and the same is hereby dropped. If the petitioner would find herself to be entitled for any further payment, she may approach the University which will then pass its order in accordance with law. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)