Patna High Court MJC No.3007 of 2009 (7) dt.16-09-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3007 of 2009
======================================================
RAM MOHAN PRASAD MEHTA , SON OF SHRI KAMESHWAR
PRASAD MEHTA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – THANA ROAD,
POLICE STATION – PATORY, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, H.R.D. DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA.
2. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR,
PATNA.
3. MISHRI LAL THAKUR, VICE CHANCELLOR, L.N.M.
UNIVERSITY DARBHANGA.
4. BIJAY KUMAR SINGH, REGISTRAR, L.N.M. UNIVERSITY
DARBHANGA.
…. …. Respondent/s
======================================================
8. 16-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
University.
A show cause and additional show cause have been
filed on behalf of the University stating therein that the order has
been complied with and as such, the contempt application
deserves to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand,
submits that petitioner has not been paid his full amount towards
the leave encashment. According to the petitioner, the total earned
leave remained to be encashed is 198 days, however, according to
the documents annexed to the show cause, it appears that total
admissible earned leave is 134 days and out of which 131 days
was deposited against the strike period. Learned counsel for the
Patna High Court MJC No.3007 of 2009 (7) dt.16-09-2011
petitioner further submits that for the strike period, petitioner had
worked by taking extra classes and as such, they could not had
adjusted from the earned leave of the petitioner. As regards the
arrears of salary, the submission of the petitioner is that calculation
is not correct, as per the revised University Grants Commission
pay scale.
Considering the submission of the parties, it appears
that petitioner has been paid admissible gratuity as also the amount
on account of earned leave. However, the calculation is disputed.
Besides the above, petitioner also disputed the calculation of
arrears of salary.
In the above circumstances, this contempt application
need not proceed further and the same stands disposed of.
However, with respect to discrepancy in the calculation on
account of arrears of salary since petitioner submits that no
calculation has been made from January 1996 to March 2001,
petitioner may bring it to the notice of the Registrar of the
University stating clearly with respect to the above which shall be
looked into and communicated to the petitioner and if any further
amount found admissible on account of arrears of salary as also the
amount against leave encashment and the statutory interest payable
on the amount of gratuity, the same shall be paid to the petitioner
Patna High Court MJC No.3007 of 2009 (7) dt.16-09-2011
expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. The
amounts found admissible shall be paid to the petitioner on receipt
of the fund from the State Government.
The M.J.C. application stands disposed of.
(Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)
Jagdish/-
