IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2839 of 2006 RAM SHANKAR PRASAD SINHA son of Late Lakshman Prasad Sinha, resident of Mohalla-Bahadurpur, Thana Road, Sitamarhi……… Petitioner. Versus (1)STATE OF BIHAR (2)Sri A.K. Choudhary, the Chief Secretary, Govt of Bihar, Patna (3) Dr.Madan Mohan Jha, the Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. (4) Sri Ran Vijay Prasad, the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt of Bihar, Patna. (5) Sri Asheshwar Yadav, the Vice Chancellor, B.R.A,Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar (6) Dr. Amjad Ali Khan, Registrar,B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. (7) Ratish Chandra Jha, the Finance Officer, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. (8) Dr. Sachidanand Srivastava, The Principal, S.R.K. Goenka College, Sitamarhi. ……………………………………………………… O.P For the petitioner:-Mr. Kumod Kumar Srivastava, Advocate For B.R.A, Bihar University:- Mr.A.B. Sinha, Advocate For the State:- Mr. S.S. Mishra, JC to GA-V 4/ 15-Oct-08 Heard the parties. Pursuant to orders of the writ court contained in Annexure-1, in respect of first three items relating to claim for arrears of salary the petitioner was paid Rs.3,34,859/- and out of that Rs.71,867/- was deducted on account of excess payment of salary in the past. The amount of Rs. 71,867/- was adjusted agains the arrears payable to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recovery of Rs.71,867/- from dues of pension was not 2 permissible and is contrary to a subsequent policy decision taken by the State of Bihar. His other grievance is that over a sum of Rs.47,250 paid to the petitioner as proceeds of provident fund no interest was paid as per rules although order to this effect was passed by the writ court as would appear from Annexure-1 in which such claim has been noticed as Item No.V. Learned counsel for the University has submitted that a show-cause and a supplementary show-cause have been filed in the office on 25.9.2008. They are supported by an affidavit sworn on 3.7.2008 and 8.8.2008. In those show-causes a stand has been taken that the petitioner is entitled to receive a further amount of Rs. 1,89,000 and odd on different heads by way of post retiral dues. This Court is not satisfied with the show-cause filed on behalf of respondent- University in respect of Item No.V. There is no reply as to why the petitioner has not been paid any interest on the amount paid to him as provident fund. So far as deduction of Rs. 71,867/- on account of excess payment of salary is 3 concerned it will not be proper for this Court to decide the issues in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. However the petitioner is give liberty to file a representation in that matter also and in respect of Item No.V before the Registrar of the University along with a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation the petitioner’s claims shall be finalized in accordance with law with a period of three weeks and the dues found payable to the petitioner keeping parity with other employees of the University, shall be paid to him within a further period of two weeks thereafter. If any of the claims of the petitioner is not accepted then the University shall indicate to the petitioner a brief reason for not accepting the claims. Petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his remedy in respect of his rejected claims in accordance with law. The contempt petition is finally disposed of. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)