IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CASE No.3064 of 2009 Pashupati Nath Tiwari, son of late Ishwar Tiwari, resident of Village Murtuzapur, Police Station Bahera, District Darbhanga…............Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Mr. K.K. Pathak, Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Mr. Misri Lal Thakur, Vice Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 4. Mr. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 5. Mr. Uday Chandra Jha, Finance Officer, L.N. Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga………………………Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 5 03.08.2011 While disposing of the earlier contempt application, this Court had directed that if admitted arrear of salary of the petitioner is not paid within six weeks, Registrar of the University shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% on the amount from his own pocket from the next date after six weeks. That having not been done, petitioner has filed this contempt application. Today, Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, hands over a cheque amounting to Rs.25,743/- towards interest as well as cost of Rs.1000/- imposed upon the University by order dated 08.09.2010. 2 Mr. Shahi submits that the present Registrar has joined on 17.09.2009, as such at the relevant time he was not responsible for delayed payment of arrears of salary of the petitioner. In the circumstances, he prays that the order passed in the earlier contempt application be modified to the extent that the present Registrar may be exempted from the liability of payment of interest from his own pocket. Considering the fact that the present Registrar has joined much late, the said order is modified to the extent that he is absolved from the liability of payment of interest from his own pocket. The contempt application is disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has some grievance with regard to salary paid to him, which according to him, is in lower scale than to what he is entitled. Petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)