IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 3202 of 2010 1. QUTBUDDIN AHMAD ANSARI S/O SRI ISHAQUE AHMAD R/O VILL.- TAJ MEDICAL, AT SRINAGAR, SIWAN, P.O., P.S. & DISTT.- SIWAN 2. JUNAID AHMAD S/O LATE HAFIZ ABDUL MAJEED R/O VILL. PURANA KELA SIWAN, P.O. P.S. AND DISTT.- SIWAN 3. KHUDEJA KHATOON D/O SULEMAN MIAN R/O VILL.- SISWAN DHALA BERNIPUR, P.O., P.S. AND DISTT. SIWAN 4. NEYAZ AHMAD S/O LATE SRI AMIR HUSSAIN R/O VILL.- BARUSRA, P.O., P.S. AND DISTT.- SIWAN 5. MUSHAFIR CHOUDHARY S/O KHEDAN CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- SISWAN DHALA BARNIPUR, P.O., P.S., AND DISTT.- SIWAN 6. MD. MAMIULLAH S/O MD. MOLUJIN R/O VILL. - DHANSI, P.O. DHANSI, P.S. SIDHWALIA, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 5. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, CHAPRA 6. THE REGISTRAR, JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, CHAPRA 7. THE SECRETARY, Z.A.ISLAMIA COLLEGE, SIWAN ----------- 7 11.10.2010 The present writ application is for quashing Annexure-11, the order passed by the Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar as communicated to the petitioners by Memo No 1436 dated 26.08.2009. Petitioners are non-teaching employees of Z A Islamia College, Siwan. Their grievance was that while, in the year 1985, Government took a decision to grant this minority College a full deficit grant College status, they forgot about the non- teaching staff. Subsequently, Government took a stand that non-teaching staff would be paid remuneration from internal resources by the College while paying full deficit grant to teaching staff. This Court directed the 2 Secretary of the Department to hear the objection and decide the same. The decision is Annexure-11 which is impugned. At this stage, I may note the stand of the State is further that whatever money the University requested for payment of dues in respect of petitioners’ College that was fully paid by the State. Therefore, the grievance, if any, should be as against the University. By that as it may, Annexure-11 is the order of the Secretary which is an apology of an order. It deliberately avoids answering the problem for which the matter was remanded to him. He shirks away from his responsibility to tackle difficult questions. The question before him was to why the non-teaching staff of the College is deprived of the full payment of wages since 1985 whereas Teachers were paid full remuneration with the assistance from the State. The Government decision to ensure payment of full wages to the non-teaching staff, as taken in 1986, was obviously prospective. The dispute was with regard to retrospective part. The Secretary chooses to avoid answering the inconvenient dispute and glosses over the matter only to burden this Court again. He has clearly shirked his responsibility. As such, I have no option but to set aside the order of the Secretary and remand the matter for a fresh decision. Now, the Principle Secretary would be obliged to consider why and under what circumstances, while granting full deficit grant status to the College in the year 1985, the State ensured full remuneration to the teaching staff, it left the non-teaching staff at the mercy of the College administration. If it was not proper then the Principal Secretary would decide upon remedial measures as well. The decision would be taken by the Principal Secretary 3 with assistance of the petitioners and the University, if he so desires, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. It would be communicated to the petitioners and the issue would not be ignored or bypassed on any technical plea. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)