IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1848 of 2007 Prof.Smt.Meera Sinha, wife of Late Rajendra Sinha, resident of Janakdhari Lal Road, Danapur Cantt, Patna-3, retired University Professor, department of Political Science, B.S. College, Danapur …………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, through its Registrar Sri D.K.Yadav 3. Sri Birendra Nath Pandey, the Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 4. Sri D.K.Yadav, the Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 5. Sri S.Shrivastava, the Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 6. Mr. Laxman Ram, Sr. Auditor, Finance Department, State of Bihar. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Advocate For the State of Bihar: Mr. A.Amanullah,SC 17 & Mr.J.G.Khan,AC to SC17 --------- 13. 16.11.2009 A supplementary show cause is filed on behalf of opposite party no. 6, the Senior Auditor, Finance Department, Government of Bihar in which it has been explained how the claim sent by the college for Rs. 4,20,592.00 minus the amount of Rs. 1,18,406/- already paid, i.e., Rs. 3,02,186/- has been reduced to Rs. 2,24,033/- which has been paid to the petitioner. It is further stated therein that in terms of the Government Rules the petitioner is also liable for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,01,805/- paid to her in excess since her husband and thereafter her son were also in service in the same college and therefore, she would not have been entitled to any house rent allowance for the period when both were in service along with an amount of Rs. 105.00 excess as paid under the head of CCA which has to be recovered. Hence, Rs. 1,01,805/- is recoverable from the petitioner which she has been paid in excess and even Rs. 2,24,033/-is excess to that extent. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contest the 2 said stand of the Audit Team. The said stand has been taken on the basis of the rules of the State Government and therefore, prima facie, this Court would not like to enter into such issues in its contempt jurisdiction. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the said action of the authorities, may take recourse to appropriate proceedings. It has been found by this Court that despite directions issued in various matters that in case there is an order by this Court to be complied with, then it is incumbent upon the auditors of the Finance Department also to ensure that after the claim is sent to them by the authorities of the University, it should be disposed of at their end within a week from the sending of such claim along with the records but the same is not being followed by the auditors of the State Government. Opposite party No.6, who is the Senior Auditor, is directed to ensure that the said time frame is maintained in all matters where compliance of the earlier order of this Court is involved. Failure to do so may itself amount to contempt of this Court. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned counsel for the University and learned Standing Counsel No. 17. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)