Patna High Court
Bihar through the Principal Secretary,versusJanardan Prasad Singh
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that contempt jurisdiction is confined to ensuring compliance with the earlier order and cannot entertain merits of the grant‑in‑aid dispute, so the impugned order is valid and the appeals are dismissed.
Summary
Janardan Prasad Singh, a former lecturer, sought back wages, pension and grant‑in‑aid benefits claiming his appointment pre‑dated the 1982 policy change. The High Court had earlier quashed the State's order denying benefits and directed the university to calculate the amount payable, which it did, arriving at Rs 54,96,294 based on the UGC 400‑950 pay scale. The State and the universities appealed the order in contempt proceedings, arguing that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing the merits of the benefit claim. The Court examined the scope of contempt jurisdiction, citing Supreme Court authority that contempt orders cannot decide substantive disputes, and held that the lower court merely directed compliance with its earlier order. Consequently, the Court found no error in the contempt order and dismissed both Letters Patent Appeals, directing the State to release the calculated amount.
Issues considered
- The scope of contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly whether a contempt order can adjudicate the merits of a grant‑in‑aid dispute.
- Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the applicable UGC pay scale and granting benefits beyond the 1982 policy cut‑off.
- Whether the impugned order dated 03‑04‑2025 is liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt jurisdiction
- letters patent appeal
- grant‑in‑aid
- financial assistance
- U.G.C. pay scale
- pre‑1982 affiliation
- Section 19 Contempt of Courts Act
- intra‑court appeal
- special leave to appeal
- review petition
- curative petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.552 of 2025
In
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4570 of 2018
======================================================
Janardan Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh, Resident of Village
Rupaspur, Post-Gosaimath, Police Stattion-Chandi District-Nalanda.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University
4. The Registrar, Magadh University,
5. The Vice-Chancellor, Patliputra University, Patna.
6. The Registrar, Patliputra University, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 534 of 2025
In
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4570 of 2018
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department
Namely Mr. R.K. Mahajan.
2. The Director, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna namely
Mr. Sushil Kumar.
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Janardan Prasad Singh Son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh, Resident of Village -
Rupaspur, Post - Gosainmath, Police Station - Chandi, District- Nalanda.
2. The Vice - Chancellor, Magadh University, namely Dr. Kamar Ahsa. The
Registrar, Magadh University, namely Colonel Pranav Kumar.
3. The Vice Chancellor, Patliputra University, Patna, namely Dr. Gulabchand
Ram Jaiswal.
4. The Registrar, Magadh University, Namely Colonel Pranav Kumar,
5. The Registrar, Patliputra University, Patna namely Colonel Manoj Kumar
Mishra.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 552 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dipak Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
2/20
Mr. Ravi Kumar, AC to AAG-13
Mr. T.P. Singh, AC to AAG-3
For the MU : Mr. Harsh Singh, Adv.
For the PPU : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Rasika, Adv.
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 534 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, AG
Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
Mr. Ravi Kumar, AC to AAG-13
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dipak Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)
Date : 26-02-2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties in both the appeals.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the order passed
in M.J.C. No. 4570 of 2018 (in C.W.J.C. No. 8120 of 2016),
they were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
3. L.P.A. No. 552 of 2025 has been preferred by the
writ petitioner–appellant, Janardan Prasad Singh, assailing the
impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed in M.J.C. No. 4570 of
2018. On the other hand, L.P.A. No. 534 of 2025 has been filed
by the State of Bihar and its authorities challenging the same
impugned order.
4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present
appeals are as follows:-
(i) The writ petitioner–appellant had preferred
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
3/20
C.W.J.C. No. 8120 of 2016 for the following reliefs:-
“(i) For quashing the information/order
dated 23.12.2014 as well as dated 19.02.2015
by the respondent no. 4 contained in Annexure:
12/1 and 12/2 by which it has wrongly been
held without giving any reason that the case of
the petitioner comes under the purview of "Vitt
Rahit Shiksha Niti" which came into force from
19.10.1982 and in the light of that, the
representation of the petitioner is not liable to
be considered.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to
the respondents-State specially Respondent No.
2 to 5 to pay arrear of admissible salary to the
petitioner with effect from 09.08.1985 to
30.06.2013 similar to the employees working in
deficit grant affiliated colleges as the affiliation
of G.D.M. College, Harnaut, Nalanda was
granted on 09.09.1981 by the State Govt. under
"Vitt Sahit Shiksha Niti" and the petitioner was
appointed to the first post of Mathematics
subject as Lecturer on 16.02.1979 i.e. much
prior to 19.10.1982, the date on which "Vitt
Rahit Shiksha Niti" came into force.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to
the respondents to treat the service of the
petitioner as Lecturer to the first post of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
4/20
Mathematics subject of G.D.M. College,
Harnaut, Nalanda from the date of his initial
appointment dated 16.02.1979 concurred by the
Bihar College Service Commission vide its
memo no. 593 dated 09.08.1985 under the
provisions of Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.
(iv) For issuance of an appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions to
the respondents-State to fix pension and to
allow other financial admissible benefits with it
for the petitioner similar to employees working
in deficit grant affiliated colleges under the
provisions contained in Governor's Secretariat
letter vide no. BSU 47/2013-93 GS(1) dated
15.01.2014.
(v) For all consequential reliefs to which
the petitioner is found entitled in course of
hearing of this writ application.”
(ii) The afore-noted writ petition was disposed of vide
order dated 27.03.2018, which reads as follows:-
“In view of the aforesaid fact the State is
not allowed to treat differently even in the
matter of distribution of largess and bounty as
held out by the Apex Court in the case of R.D.
Shetty vs. IAAI & Ors reported in AIR 1979
Supreme Court 1628 in the matter of granting
financial assistance to the college, the
respondent State cannot adopt two yardsticks
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
5/20
one for college in question and different
yardstick for other affiliated colleges granted
affiliation prior to cut off date of 9.12.1982.
In view of the discussion above, the order
contained in Annexure-12/1 and 12/2 dated
23.12.2014 and 19.02.2015 cannot sustain and
it is accordingly quashed. The respondents are
directed to work out the financial assistance
admissible to the petitioner institution within a
maximum period of six months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition
stands disposed of.”
(iii) Aggrieved, the State of Bihar preferred an intra-
court appeal, being L.P.A. No. 1312 of 2018, which came to be
dismissed with the observation that the writ-petitioner may
pursue the contempt proceedings stated to be pending before the
learned Single Judge, namely M.J.C. No. 4570 of 2018. The
State of Bihar thereafter assailed the order dated 27.02.2019
passed in L.P.A. No. 1312 of 2018 by filing Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 1233 of 2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed on
29.08.2023, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to
affirm the view taken by the High Court, particularly in light of
the fact that similarly situated institutions had been extended the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
6/20
benefits in question.
(iv) The State of Bihar preferred Review Petition
(Civil) No. 799 of 2024, which came to be dismissed on
23.04.2024. Thereafter, the State filed Curative Petition (Civil)
No. 159 of 2024, which was also dismissed on 24.09.2024.
(v) Notwithstanding the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 8120 of 2016, which stood
affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and despite
dismissal of both the Review Petition and the Curative Petition,
the State and the University failed to comply with the directions
issued therein. Consequently, the writ petitioner pressed M.J.C.
No. 4570 of 2018.
(vi) During the course of hearing in M.J.C. No. 4570
of 2018, the learned Single Judge took note of the averments
made in the show cause affidavit filed on behalf of the State
authorities, wherein it was stated that the Department had issued
directions to the concerned University/College to compute the
financial assistance admissible to the writ petitioner. In view of
the aforesaid facts, vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in
M.J.C. No. 4570 of 2018, the University was directed to
constitute a Special Committee for calculation of the admitted
dues payable to the writ petitioner in compliance with the earlier
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
7/20
directions. Subsequently, Patliputra University filed a second
supplementary show cause affidavit annexing the recalculated
claim along with the second interim report of the Special
Enquiry Committee. It was further informed that a demand for
funds had been submitted to the State Government for
disbursement of payment to the writ petitioner. However, upon
consideration, it was found that the calculation undertaken by
Patliputra University did not include the amount accruing
towards pensionary benefits after the voluntary retirement of the
writ petitioner on 03.06.2013. Accordingly, the Registrar of
Patliputra University was directed to pass a reasoned and
speaking order on the petitioner’s representation, which had
been sent through speed post on 30.01.2024. The University was
further directed to furnish complete details of the petitioner’s
monthly pension from the date of his superannuation. The
Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar and the Director, Higher Education Department,
Government of Bihar were also directed to take necessary steps
to ensure release of the funds as requisitioned by Patliputra
University.
(vii) Subsequently, in pursuance of the order dated
20.12.2024 passed in M.J.C. No. 4570 of 2018, the Patliputra
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
8/20
University filed third supplementary show cause, bringing on
record a reasoned order passed by the Registrar of the
University on 16.01.2025. However, the concerned College
contradicted the claim of the writ petitioner as well as the
Patliputra University; hence, the Registrar of the Patliputra
University was directed to verify the original records of the
concerned college and the documents filed or relied upon by the
writ petitioner.
(viii) Finally, a fourth supplementary show cause
came to be filed on 19.02.2025, wherein it has been
categorically stated that as per the record submitted by the
Principal, G.D.M. College, the total outstanding arrears payable
to the writ petitioner calculated and came to Rs. 54,96,294.
(ix) The writ petitioner, on the other hand, filed a
rejoinder in response to the fourth supplementary show cause
submitted by the Patliputra University with a grievance that as
per the latest calculation chart provided by the college, the writ
petitioner's basic pay has been shown in the scale of Rs. 400-
950, contrary to the petitioner's entitlement to the pay scale of
Rs.700-1600. Grievance has also been raised that the writ
petitioner has also been denied from his due promotion despite
the clear prescription of the statute applicable to him. It is also
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
9/20
submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that
similarly situated teaching staff of Purvottar Railway College,
Sonepur, who were also appointed to the first post prior to
coming into ववत रवहत वशका नीवत i.e. 09.12.1982 and retired after
31.08.2010 are getting post retirement benefit like other
employees of the constituent colleges.
(x) On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite
party nos.1 and 2 in M.J.C. No. 4570 of 2018 filed fifth
supplementary affidavit and submitted that the matter was
placed before the Empowered Committee constituted under the
Chief Secretary and the said Committee made its
recommendation in compliance with the order of this Court and
based upon such recommendation, the Department had passed a
speaking order on 12.11.2024 vide Memo No. 1580, whereby
payment to the eligible teaching and non-teaching staff of the
college was directed for the period from the date of
intermediate-level affiliation granted to the said college i.e.
09.09.1981 to 19.10.1982 by treating the college as if it was a
deficit grant college. The Department of Higher Education
further vide Memo No.1115 dated 05.08.2024, requested the
Registrar of the concerned University to make a statement after
verifying all the relevant facts in terms with the afore-noted
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
10/20
direction.
(xi) The University calculated the financial assistance
admissible to the writ petitioner amounting to Rs. 54,96,294/-
based on the U.G.C. pay scale of Rs. 400-950 computing from
the date of creation of post. The writ petitioner again contended
that the applicable U.G.C. pay scale should be Rs.700-1600, and
the payment should have been made accordingly.
5. After careful consideration of the materials brought
on record by the respective parties, the learned Single Judge has
categorically observed that the disputed question of fact cannot
be adjudicated in the present proceeding. Accordingly the
contempt application was disposed of with the following
observations:-
“17. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances as well as the submissions of the
parties, the University has already calculated
the financial assistance payable to the
petitioner i.e., amounting to Rs.54,96,294/-
(Fifty four lakhs ninety- six thousand two
hundred ninety- four). Therefore, it is the
liability of the State to disburse the said amount
in compliance of the order dated 27-03-2018,
passed in C.W. J.C. No. 8120 of 2016, within a
period of six weeks.
18. It is made clear that the amount
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
11/20
required to be paid to the petitioner, as
mentioned above, must be positively paid within
the stipulated time. Furthermore, petitioner’
claim, if any, shall remain open for challenging
the calculation done by the respondent
authorities. The fact remains that the Opposite
Parties- authorities have worked out the
financial assistance admissible to the petitioner
as required by this court’s order dated 27-03-
2018, and they have calculated the amount
required to be paid to the petitioner though
belatedly.
19. Thus, this Court disposes of the instant
contempt application in the light of the
aforesaid direction.”
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ
petitioner–appellant in L.P.A. No. 552 of 2025 has vehemently
contended that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the
contempt application by the impugned order, failed to adjudicate
upon the specific claim of the writ petitioner as to whether he
was/is entitled to the monetary benefits as directed in the
connected writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 8120 of 2016. It is
submitted that the writ petitioner is entitled to all consequential
benefits granted to the colleges which were accorded affiliation
prior to 09.12.1982. It is further contended that the order passed
by the Registrar is wholly unreasoned and does not address or
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
12/20
decide the claim of the writ petitioner. It is also asserted that the
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that there exists no
disputed question of fact in the present case, as the entire claim
of the writ petitioner is founded upon the relevant statutory
provisions and the Government notification.
7. Adverting to L.P.A. No. 534 of 2025, preferred by
the State and its authorities, Mr. P.K. Shahi, the learned
Advocate General, has submitted with all his vehemence that
the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the contempt
application with direction which was not there in the order
under contempt. The learned Single Judge vide its order dated
27.03.2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 8120 of 2016, directed to consider
the case of the writ-petitioner institution as being covered under
the pre-ववत रवहत वशका नीवत and grant all the admissible benefits
to the colleges which had been granted affiliation prior to
09.12.1982. The authorities were further directed to work out
the financial assistance admissible to the writ petitioner. The
said order was assailed by the State in L.P.A. No. 1312 of 2018,
which came to be dismissed by the learned Division Bench.
While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench categorically
observed that the policy applicable prior to 09.12.1982 would
govern the case of the respondent-writ petitioner as well. There
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
13/20
was no direction to extend the benefit of deficit grant beyond
09.12.1982, i.e., the date from which the ववत रवहत वशका नीवत
came into force. Notwithstanding the aforesaid factual and legal
position, the learned Single Judge, while exercising contempt
jurisdiction, has allowed the writ petitioner the benefit of deficit
grant even beyond the date 09.12.1982. Such a direction, it is
contended, travels beyond the scope of the original judgment
and could not have been issued in a contempt proceeding. It is
further submitted that the State Government has considered the
case of the writ petitioner and passed a reasoned order by which
it has been directed to treat the institution as if it was a deficit
grant college from the date of intermediate level affiliation that
is 09.09.1981 to 19.10.1982. It is lastly contended that it is a
well settled proposition that in contempt jurisdiction the Court
will not travel beyond the original judgment and direction;
neither would it be permissible for the Court to issue any
supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be
found in the original judgment and order. The Court is only
concerned with the willful or deliberate non-compliance of the
directions issued in the original judgment and order.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to
state here that the issue with regard to the maintainability of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
14/20
such an appeal against the order(s) passed in contempt
proceedings, has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Co-operative Bank Ltd.
and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 399],
wherein the Apex Court in para-11 of the decision succinctly
summarized the governing principles, which is as follows:-
"11. The position emerging from these
decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in
contempt proceedings may be summarised thus:
I. An appeal under Section 19 is
maintainable only against an order or decision
of the High Court passed in exercise of its
jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an
order imposing punishment for contempt, that
is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.
II. Neither an order declining to initiate
proceedings for contempt, nor an order
initiating proceedings for contempt nor an
order dropping the proceedings for contempt
nor an order acquitting or exonerating the
contemnor, is appellable under Section 19 of
the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may
be open to challenge under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
III. In a proceeding for contempt, the
High Court can decide whether any contempt of
court has been committed, and if so, what
should be the punishment and matters
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
15/20
incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is
not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any
issue relating to the merits of the dispute
between the parties.
IV. Any direction issued or decision made
by the High Court on the merits of a dispute
between the parties, will not be in the exercise
of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and,
therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of
the CC Act. The only exception is where such
direction or decision is incidental to or
inextricably connected with the order punishing
for contempt, in which event the appeal under
Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the
incidental or inextricably connected directions.
V. If the High Court, for whatsoever
reason, decides an issue or makes any
direction, relating to the merits of the dispute
between the parties, in a contempt proceedings,
the aggrieved person is not without remedy.
Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-
court appeal (if the order was of a learned
Single Judge and there is a provision for an
intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave
to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India (in other cases).”
9. After going through the ruling afore-noted, it is
evident that if the High Court decides an issue or makes any
direction relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
16/20
in a contempt proceeding, the aggrieved person may challenge
the same in an intra-court appeal, if there is such provision or
may seek Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
10. Now coming to the impugned order, undisputedly
the University has filed the supplementary show cause before
the learned Single Judge in M.J.C. No.4570 of 2018 with
calculation of financial assistance admissible to the writ
petitioner-appellant amounting to Rs.54,96,294/- based on the
U.G.C. pay scale due from the date of creation of post. Once,
based upon the materials available on record, the University has
carried out a calculation and produced the same, obviously there
is a liability of the State to disburse the said amount to be paid
to the writ petitioner-appellant in compliance with the order
dated 27.03.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.8120 of 2016.
Nonetheless, if the appellant in L.P.A. No.552 of 2025 has any
grievance with regard to the admissibility of the U.G.C. pay
scale, as it has been contended that the pay scale of the writ
petitioner-appellant should be 700-1600, in such circumstances,
he has the remedy to challenge the action of the concerned
authorities by filing appropriate application.
11. The Court while exercising the contempt
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
17/20
jurisdiction is only confined to see as to whether the order under
contempt has been complied with in its letter and spirit or there
is any willful and deliberate defiance of such order. If the Court
arrives at a finding of conscious and intentional defiance of its
order, the concerned authorities may be proceeded against and
dealt with in accordance with law under the contempt
jurisdiction.
12. In the case at hand, the University has made a
categorical statement that, in compliance with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 8120 of 2016, it has
calculated the admissible amount at Rs.54,96,294/- and has
requested the State authorities to release the said sum to
facilitate payment to the appellant (in L.P.A. No.552 of 2025).
In view of such stand and the steps taken pursuant thereto, this
Court finds no cogent reason and the ground raised in L.P.A.
No.552 of 2025 warranting any interference with the order dated
03.04.2025 passed in M.J.C. No. 4570 of 2018.
13. Similarly, this Court also does not find any merit
in the submissions advanced on behalf of the State in L.P.A. No.
534 of 2025. By the order under contempt, the learned Single
Judge noticed that upon setting aside the orders dated
23.12.2014 and 19.02.2015, directed the respondent–State and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
18/20
the University to determine and quantify the financial assistance
admissible to the writ petitioner–appellant institution within a
stipulated time frame. The said direction was clear, specific, and
confined to the working out of the admissible financial
assistance in accordance with law. No infirmity, jurisdictional
error, or perversity is discernible in the said order so as to
warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
14. The learned Division Bench on challenge made by
the State authorities in L.P.A. No. 1312 of 2018, while
upholding the order of the learned Single Judge dated
27.03.2018 in C.W.J.C. No.8120 of 2016, has observed in its
paragraph 7 as follows: -
“7. In the background aforesaid, what we
find is that the bone of contention narrows
down to the admissibility of the grantin-aid to
the respondent-petitioner. The posts which are
claimed to have been sanctioned by the
respondent-petitioner under the deeming clause
does not appear to be disputed. What appears
to be disputed is the date of the applicability of
the extension of the benefit of the grant-in-aid
to the Institution. We are unable to find any
material in the affidavits filed on behalf of the
appellant-State, which may establish that the
appellants’ claim of having acquired the right to
claim grant of funds from the State that had
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
19/20
already crystallized prior to 09.12.1982 is in
any way diluted. In the absence of any such
material to contradict the aforesaid established
facts, we do not find that the learned single
Judge has committed any error in proceeding to
allow the writ petition filed by the respondent-
petitioner.”
15. From perusal of the observation made by the
learned Division Bench in L.P.A. No.1312 of 2018, it is
manifest that the post which is claimed to have been sanctioned
to the writ petitioner-appellant was never in dispute. The
controversy was confined solely to the date from which the
benefit of grant-in-aid was to be extended to the institution.
However, the State failed to controvert the specific claim of the
writ petitioner–appellant, who successfully established that his
right to receive grant-in-aid from the State had crystallised prior
to 09.12.1982. The order passed by the learned Single Judge, as
affirmed by the Appellate Court, has further attained finality,
after the same having been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, with both the Review Petition and the Curative Petition
standing dismissed. In such circumstances, it was incumbent
upon the University to compute and determine the financial
benefits payable to the writ petitioner–appellant in terms of the
directions issued in C.W.J.C. No. 8120 of 2016. The University
Patna High Court L.P.A No.552 of 2025 dt.26-02-2026
20/20
has accordingly undertaken the calculation and requested the
State to disburse the admissible amount.
16. In view of the above, this Court finds that the
learned Single Judge, while exercising contempt jurisdiction,
has not exceeded its jurisdiction. Rather, the directions issued
were solely to secure compliance with the earlier order of this
Court in its true letter and spirit. The impugned order, therefore,
does not suffer from any perversity or palpable illegality.
Accordingly, both the Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed.
17. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
18. It is expected that the State and the University
must ensure the compliance of the order of the learned Single
Judge, henceforth.
(Harish Kumar, J)
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 17-02-2026
Uploading Date 26-02-2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…