IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10842 of 2002 HARI PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 16/ 25.03.2010 Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha for the L.N. Mithila University, Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel representing the B.N. Mandal University and Mr. Shashi Shekhar, assisting counsel to SC 20 are present. The writ petitioner had filed the writ petition for payment of certain post retiral dues which according to him still remained pending. Perusal of the documents forming the proceedings shows that this petitioner had earlier moved this Court for same and similar relief through C.W.J.C. No. 514 of 1996 and which was disposed of by order dated 14.8.1996 with a direction to the Universities to pay the entire admissible post retiral dues within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which they were liable to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/-. A further direction was issued that the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 10 per cent over such dues calculated from the date of retirement until the date of payment. Non-compliance of the orders of this Court led to filing of M.J.C. No. 1697 of 1997. The order passed in the contempt application shows that a stand was taken by the L.N. 2 Mithila University that the admissible amount had been paid. The B.N. Mandal University also took a plea that the arrears to which the petitioner was entitled has already been paid and that a sum of Rs. 5,40,170/- had already been paid to the petitioner towards retiral dues. In such circumstances, the learned Court hearing the contempt proceeding was of the opinion that no further order was required to be passed in the case and the contempt petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise any issue regarding quantum of the payment. It so appears that the petitioner raised his claim before the authorities and as according to him the grievance remained pending, hence the present writ petition came to be filed. Most of the claims raised by the petitioner, except few, relates to payment of interest. I find from the order of the Contempt Court that as admissible payments of the petitioner had been made over to him during the pendency of the proceedings the only liberty given to the petitioner was to raise his grievance regarding quantum. In that view of the matter, the claim for interest was not available to the petitioner and to that extent his claim is not justified. However, definitely, the petitioner is entitled to such of the post retiral claims which have not been paid to him and/or the issue of quantum raised by him and which has not been disposed of by the University. In such situation, I deem it fit to dispose of the writ 3 petition with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his claim before the respective Universities only as regards the quantum and/or non-payment of his retiral dues exclusively and which shall be considered by the Universities to whom the claim relates and be disposed of by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. Considering the fact that the petitioner superannuated on 29.2.1992, I hope and trust that the representation would be taken up by the respective Universities and be disposed of with utmost priority. Needless to add that if the petitioner has made out any claim for further payment towards principal but not interest, the principle amount should be paid to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)