IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.780 of 2010 INDRANATH SINGH THAKUR, S/O LATE KASHINATH SINGH THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE- BHAUR, POST OFFICE-BHAUR, POLICE STATION-PANDAUL, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1.DR. SMT. PADMASHA JHA, VICE CHANCELLOR, LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 2.DR. BIMAL KUMAR, REGISTRAR, LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA. 3.THE STATE OF BIHAR. …………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 03/ 09.03.2011 Heard Mr. Ramesh Jha, Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The order of this Court dated 19.03.2009 primarily meant for payment of retirement benefit to the petitioner and from today’s show cause reply filed by the Registrar of the University, it is more than clear that such retirement benefit had already been paid to the petitioner, in fact some excess amount had also been paid to him. The competent authority of the University in fact has also explained in his show cause reply that the balance amount of salary or leave encashment after deducting the excess amount of retirement benefit paid to the petitioner comes to Rs. 2,03,645/-, 2 but as no fund for the same has been released by the State Government and amount for such payment is not available right now in the University, a requisition has already been made from the State Government for release of the aforementioned amount. While this aspect of the matter does not strictly relate to the contempt application, this much may still be observed that the petitioner a retired employee is entitled for being paid all his dues and accordingly this Court hopes and believes that the University will also make payment of the balance amount of Rs. 2,03,645/- within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the aforementioned calculation of payable amount to the petitioner in any way is to the detriment and dissatisfaction of the petitioner, he will have liberty to point out the same to the competent authority of the University who in turn would do needful by looking into such grievance of the petitioner and its redressal in accordance 3 with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction this contempt application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)