IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9680 of 2007 Satish Prasad, Son of Late Shiv Nandan Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Bari Dariyapur( Behind Main Police Station Jamalpur) P.S. Jamalpur, District- Munger ----------------------- Petitioner Versus 1.The Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, through its Registrar 2.The Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur 3.The Pro-Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur 4.The Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur 5.The Finance Officer, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur 6.The Principal, J.R.S. College, Jamalpur 7.The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat,Patna 8.The Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,Patna 9.The Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat,Patna 10. The Director, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat,Bihar,Patna ----------------------- Respondents. ----------- 12 04-07-2011 Heard Sri Purusottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.1 to 5 / Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur and Sri Krishna Murari Prasad, learned A.C. to Govt. Advocate no.6 , who appears on behalf of Respondent nos.7 to 10/State. Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent/ Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur has drawn my attention to Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University and submits that by order dated 14.2.2009 passed by the Registrar of the University, almost all the retiral dues of the petitioner have already been paid. Sri Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit makes it clear that difference of salary of the petitioner was not paid. 2 However, he submits that payment of difference of salary has been made but some amount has been deducted. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the relief sought for by the petitioner in the main writ petition i.e for granting relief of merger of 50 % dearness relief on his basic pension with effect from 1.1.2005, has not been disputed in the counter affidavit and the said relief is required to be granted in view of order dated 3.12.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.3616 of 2010 (Dr.Himanshu Bhushan Vs. T.M.Bhagalpur University & Ors.) and other analogous cases. Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents is not in a position to dispute the claim for merger of 50% dearness relief on his basic pension in view order passed in Dr.Himanshu Bhusan’s case (supra). Accordingly, the relief No.3 i.e. the prayer for merger of 50% dearness allowance on his basic pension with effect from 1.1.2005 is allowed in terms of order passed in Dr.Himanshu Bhusan’s case (supra). So far remaining grievances as per Annexure-E to the supplementary counter affidavit is concerned, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before Respondent no.2/ Vice-Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University ,Bhagalpur . If such representation is filed by the petitioner, it is expected that Respondent no.2 will examine the same in its right perspective and dispose it of within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. With above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.) NKS/-