IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1280 of 2008 PROF. HARI BALLABH PANDEY, son of Late Kalanand Pandey, resident of Mohalla Sarvodaya Nagar, Police Station Town (Sadar, District Begusarai. Versus 1.E STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.Anjani Kumar Singh, the Commissioner cum Secretary, the Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.Mishri Lal Thakur, the Vice Chancellor, L.N.M. University, Darbhanga. 4.Naresh Kumar Jha, the Registrar, L.N.M. University, Darbhanga. ----------- 16 30/3/2010 Heard Mr. H.K.Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parthsarthi, learned counsel for the University. Grievance of the petitioner is that the order of this Court dated 25.2.2008 has not been complied as yet in the letter and spirit. In order to understand such submission it would be useful to quote the operative portion of the order which reads as follows:- “In those circumstances proceeding on the basis that there is no dispute to the claims put forward in the petition founded on the decision of the Government dated 20th July, 2001, the writ petition is allowed by directing the university to settle the revision of salary to which the petitioner was entitled to from 1.1.1996 until his retirement and to pay the same to the petitioner within two weeks from today together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum. The university is also directed to similarly revise the pension of the petitioner on the basis of his revised salary within a period of two weeks from today and to pay the arrears due on that account together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum. The University is also directed to pay to the petitioner within the time as above interest at the rate of 11% per annum in respect of Group Insurance and not 4% per annum as has 2 been paid to the petitioner. The aforementioned payments shall reach the petitioner without the petitioner doing anything further. In the event the dues and claims, as above, do not reach the petitioner within the period mentioned above, the University shall be liable to pay interest on and from the date of default at the rate of 15% per annum instead of 5% per annum. The Registrar of the University shall pay cost of this litigation, which is assessed at Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand), to the petitioner within seven days from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.’ Mr. Parthsarthi leaned counsel for the University has submitted that each and every payment has been made as was directed by this Court except arrears of salary which according to the petitioner has to be paid in U.G.C pay scale. In the opinion of this Court, no such direction for payment of salary in the U.G.C. scale has been given by this Court and as such submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for payment of salary on the U.G.C. scale cannot be entertained by this Court. Each and every employee of the University can be only paid the pay scale which has been in force and if revision of pay scale has been made with effect from 1.1.1996 the same has been made as an additional input on U.G.C. scale but that could not be any ground for contempt as no such order was passed in the original writ petition. At this stage, Mr. Jha would submit that whatever revision of pay scale was made with effect from 1.1.1996, the 3 University may look into the matter and the arrears, if any, on the revised pay scale is found to be payable to the petitioner, the same be extended to him. This Court however would not expand the scope of the order dated 25.2.2008 and therefore liberty is only given to the petitioner to approach the opposite parties to claim arrears in U.G.C. pay scale. With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of. . Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)