IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10671 of 2008 Surendra Narain Chaudhary, Son of Late Ram Nandan Chaudhary Retired. Reader of Gopeshwar College Hathwa, Gopalganj at present Kutub Bihar Phase-I, Thankar Chowk, Plot No. – 8, Block – F, New Delhi – 71. ….. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. Jai Prakash University, Chapra, through its Registrar, District Chapra. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra, District – Saran at Chapra. 5. The Finance Officer, Jai Prakash University, Chapra, District – Saran. 6. Baba Saheb Bheem Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar, District – Muzaffarpur. 7. The Vice-Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bheem Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, District – Muzaffarpur. 8. The Registrar, Bheem Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffapur, District – Muzaffarpur. 9. The Finance Officer, Baba Saheb Bheem Rao Ambedkar, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, District – Muzaffarpur. 10. The Finance Officer, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. …………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 10 03.11.2011 Heard Sri Shubh Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Nutan Sahay, learned A.C. to Standing Counsel No. 1 appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2/State, Sri Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 to 5 & 10 / J.P. University, Chapra and Sri Harendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6 to 9/ Baba Saheb Bheem Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner, who retired in the year 1995 as ‘Reader’ has prayed for directing the respondents to pay 2 remaining amount of retiral dues. At the very outset Sri Shivendra Kishore has raised preliminary objection on the point of maintainability of the writ petition. It was submitted by Sri Kishore that the petitioner has earlier approached this court by filing a writ petition for retiral dues which was disposed of by a common order on 21.12.2000 vide ‘Annexure – 1’ to the writ petition, and thereafter, since that order was not fully complied with, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition vide MJC No. 1170 of 2001, which too was disposed of on 03.05.2002. It was submitted that for the same relief the petitioner is not entitled to file second writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to last paragraph of the order dated 03.05.2002 in MJC No. 1170 of 2001 and it has been argued that while disposing of the contempt petition this court had granted liberty to the petitioner for pursuing his further claim, if any, before the appropriate authority, and as such, the petitioner for remaining grievances has approached the authority concerned. Sri Shivendra Kishore has further argued that he has specifically stated in its counter affidavit that difference of arrear of pension has also been paid and nothing is pending with the J.P. University, Chapra. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 3 the writ petition may be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned by filing representation. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that payment has been made by J.P. University, Chapra, but a claim has been made that calculation chart has not been supplied by the J.P. University, Chapra. Sri Harendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent / B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, does not dispute the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for approaching the authority concerned by filing representation. In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation regarding his remaining grievance along with relevant documents before respondent no. 8 / Registrar, Bheem Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, within a period of eight weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the respondent no. 8 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. Even in case of refusal, the respondent no. 8 is required to pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within four months from the date of filing of such representation. 4 The petitioner is further granted liberty to approach the respondent no. 3 / J.P. University, Chapra, through its Registrar by filing a representation regarding the claim for providing calculation chart. The said representation must be filed within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is filed, the respondent no. 3 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, and if possible, provide calculation chart to the petitioner within aforesaid time i.e. four months from the date of filing of representation. The writ petition stands disposed of. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)