IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.404 of 2011
Dr. Prabhash Pd. Verma & Ors
Versus
Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice Chancellor
WITH
MJC No.1621 of 2011
Parmanand Singh
Versus
Dr. K.N.Dubey, The Vice-Chancelor
WITH
MJC No.520 of 2011
Dr. Krishna Nand
Versus
Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice Chancellor
WITH
MJC No.1672 of 2011
Prof. Jitendra Pd. Singh
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
WITH
MJC No.1674 of 2011
Sri Narendra Kumar Singh & Ors
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
WITH
MJC No.1671 of 2011
Kashi Nath Mandal
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
WITH
MJC No.4518 of 2010
Laxman Mishra
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
WITH
MJC No.594 of 2011
Krishna Nand Kumar
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
WITH
MJC No.925 of 2011
Dr. Durga Sharan Singh
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
WITH
MJC No.1349 of 2011
Taranand Pd. Singh
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
WITH
2
MJC No.1477 of 2011
Dr. Meera Singh
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
WITH
MJC No.1735 of 2011
Dr. Manazir Hasan & Ors
Versus
Dr. K.N.Dubey & Ors
WITH
MJC No.1806 of 2011
Dr. Murli Murari Pd.
Versus
Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice-Chancellor
WITH
MJC No.1807 of 2011
Dr. Pramila Pd.
Versus
Dr. K.N. Dubey, The Vice- Chancellor
WITH
MJC No.1971 of 2011
Dr. Maya Bhattacharjee
Versus
Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice Chancellor
WITH
MJC No.1759 of 2011
Akhileshwar Jha
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
WITH
MJC No.2256 of 2011
Dr. Kanak Kumar Pandey
Versus
Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice-Chancellor
WITH
MJC No.2270 of 2011
Dr. Balkrishna Jha
Versus
Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice-Chancellor
WITH
MJC No.2652 of 2011
Prof. Brajendra Bhushan Pandey & Ors
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
WITH
MJC No.2630 of 2011
Prof. Sudhir Singh
Versus
The State of Bihar
-----------
3
03 20.07.2011 These twenty cases arise out of the judgment of
this Court whereby this Court had held that the age of
superannuation of teaching staff of the University stood
extended to 62 to 65 years with effect from 30th June, 2010.
Petitioners in these contempt petitions filed these
applications with a prayer that notwithstanding the judgment
aforesaid they had been retired.
During pendency of the contempt applications,
petitioners have been reinstated and, as such, they are
working but they are not being paid their full remuneration
on the plea of the same old story lack of funds. All this
Court can say is it is shameful.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that
University has preferred some Letters Patent Appeal in
which while not granting any stay notices have only been
issued. It is regrettable that litigation continues to be
generated by the State instrumentalities much to the
discomfort of Court.
In such a situation, as work is being taken by the
University and the teachers are the staff of the University, I
direct that by 3rd August, 2011 University would file full
compliance reports supported by affidavit and, if full
compliance reports are not filed, the Vice-Chancellors, the
Registrars and the Finance Officers of the University
concerned would personally present in the Court to answer
4
the rule of contempt. Till full payments are not made to the
petitioners in these applications, the Vice-Chancellors, the
Registrars and the Finance Officers of the University
concerned shall not draw any remuneration.
Put up these matter under the heading “For
Orders” on 3rd August, 2011.
Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)