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.

rohit/-

(Harish Kumar, J)

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

AFR/NAFR NAFR

CAV DATE 17-02-2026

Uploading Date 26-02-2026

Transmission Date