Dr.Gajanan Pandey vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 19 August, 2010

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CWJC No.11402 of 1997
                     DR.GAJANAN PANDEY, S/o Sri Ram Sagar Pandey, R/o
                     Village- Dih Bagahi, P.S.-Kateya, District- Gopalganj, at
                     present posted as a Lecturer in Bharteshwari Marwari
                     Sanskrit Mahabidyalaya, Chapra, District- Saran.
                                              Versus
                   1. STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Higher
                      Education,     Human        Resources      Development
                      Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
                   2. The Vice-Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh, Darbhanga
                      Sanskrit University, Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga.
                   3. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit
                      University, Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga.
                   4. The Finance Officer, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga
                      Sanskrit University, Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga.
                   5. The Chairman, Bihar College Service Commission,
                      Boaring Canal Road, Patna, District-Patna.
                   6. The Secretary, Bihar College Service Commission,
                      Boaring Canal Road, Patna, District-Patna.
                   7. The Secretary, Bharteshwari Marwari Sanskrit
                      Mahabidyalaya        Chapra,       District-     Saran
                      Governing Body.
                   8. The Principal, Bharteshwari Marwari Sanskrit
                      Mahabidyalaya, Chapra, District- Saran.

                                            -----------

9. 19-08-2010 The present application had been filed by the

petitioner, who was a teacher in Kameshwar Singh

Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Chapra. From the

proceeding, it is clear that the only reason when the

petitioner’s payments were not being made was

financial crisis faced by the University.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that

during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner’s

grievances have been met and payments for which the

writ petition had been filed, have been made.
2

Learned counsel for the University, learned

counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the

Principal have no objection.

Having thus, survived to adjudicate the issue,

the writ petition, is disposed of.

Sujit                                        (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)