IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.652 of 2011 Kewal Jha, son of Sri Jageshwar Jha, resident of village Sohrai, P.S. Pandaul, District Madhubani, presently functioning as in the Department of Political Science, R.D.S.College, Salmari (previously Lecturer in Political Science, D.S.College, Katihar … Petitioner Versus 1. Mr. Devanand Konwar, the Chancellor Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna 2. Sri R.P.Srivastav, vide Chancellor, B.N.Mandal University, Lallo Nagar, Madhepura, Bihar 3. Sri Kumaresh Prasad Singh, Registrar, B.N.Mandal University, Lallo Nagar, Madhepura, Bihar 4. Sri Samarendra Pratap Singh, Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mishra Mithila University, Darbhanga 5. Sri Vimal Kumar, Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mishra Mithila University, Darbhanga 6. Sri Suresh Prasad Yadav, Principal, D.S.College, Katihar 7. Sri Pawan Kumar Jha, Lecturer, Department of Political Science, D.S.College, Katihar 8. State of Bihar … Opp.Parties. ---------------------------------- 5. 25.10.2011 Heard Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Krishna Jha, learned Senior counsel on behalf of B.N.Mandal University as also Mr. Nitiranjan Jha, learned counsel for O.P.No.7 and the learned counsel for the State. In this case the petitioner complains violation of the direction given in the order dated 15.7.2010 in connected writ application, C.W.J.C.No. 7500/1997. Mr. Thakur submits that from the show cause reply filed by the officials of the University it would transpire that the petitioner was held entitled to arrears of salary by way of difference in the scale between the post of Lecturer and the Reader for the period 25.3.1992 to December, 2005 to tuneof Rs. 6,15,661/- after adjusting the amount already paid. Such details have been given in paragraphs 4 and 5 which 2 reads as follows: “4. That the answering opposite parties submits that with regard to arrears part the facts are as follows: (i) The petitioner has been given promotion to the post of Reader with effect from 25.3.1992 on 26.11.2009 vide letter no. 1918 dated 26.11.2009. 5. That the answering respondents calculated the amount of differences in the scale in between lecture and Reader for the period of 25.3.1992 to Dec. 2005 after adjusting the amount already paid, which comes upto Rs. 6,15,661/- out of which the petitioner has been paid Rs. 1,91,978/- vide cheque no. 689576 dated 28.7.2011 and the rest amount of Rs. 4,23,683/- vide cheque no. 912406 dated 18.10.2011 and cheque no. 912407 dated 18.10.2011 to the petitioner through the College concerned vide letter no. 326/11 and 327/11 dated 18.10.2011.” Since Opposite parties in paragraph 6 have taken a stand that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to arrears of difference of salary upto December, 2005 has been redressed, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has a serious objection to the said stand of the University and he would submit that first of all calculation of arrears is wrong and secondly the claim of the University that the entire sum of Rs. 6,15,661/- has already been paid is also not correct and the petitioner can demonstrate this by filing the rejoinder to the show cause reply. In the considered opinion of this Court when the order in question whose violation has led to filing of this contempt application had not quantified the amount it would be a futile exercise to keep this contempt application pending. 3 It, however, goes without saying that if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to quantification and actual payment of the amount of arrears of salary for which a direction was given in the connected writ application, he will have the liberty to file his representation to the Registrar of the University, who would thereafter get the grievance of the petitioner, as raised in the writ application, examined and also communicate the decision of the University after obtaining an order of the Vice Chancellor. As the issue of seniority also has been resolved, this Court would find that as a matter of fact the order of this Court has been substantially complied and this contempt application on account of stand taken by the opposite parties has at least become infructuous. That being so, this application is dismissed as having become infructuous. The personal appearance of the Registrar of the University and the Principal of the College, in view of the aforementioned stand, is also dispensed with. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/