IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6131 of 2003 RAMODGAR JHA, son of Late Rajpati Jha, resident of village- Shashan, P. S. Hasanpur, District- Samastipur (Since dead and substituted by his L.Rs.) …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 3. The Registrar, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 4. The Finance Officer, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 5. The Principal, R.C.S. College, Manjhaul, P. S. Manjhaul, District- Begusarai. 6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. … Respondents. ------------- 5. 09.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Parthsharathi, learned counsel for the L. N. Mithila University as also Mr. M. K. Pathak, learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner initially made in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. That the present application is being filed on behalf of the said petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to pay the legal admitted dues relating to his salary prior to his retirement for which the petitioner is entitled to but not paid after his retirement and for fixation of new pay scale on his time bound promotion to the post of University Professor with effect from 1.6.95 as per Notification dt. 11.2.1998.” Subsequently by filing a supplementary affidavit 2 has also raised claim for payment of arrears of gratuity, leave encashment and also arrears of salary. Let it be noted that original writ petitioner who filed this writ petition on 10.7.2003 has also been dead and is substituted by his wife and other heirs and legal representatives. Counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that there is no denial to the fact that original writ petitioner had earned his promotion under the time bound statute on the post of Professor w.e.f. 1.6.1995 which of course was subject to approval of the Syndicate. He would also submit that when the original writ petitioner had retired in the year 1998 ( on 31.1.1998), he was still holding the post of reader and his promotion came to be notified only after retirement in the month of February 1998. That is how the Principal of the College had to send the arrears statement of the original writ petitioner showing the dues of arrears of Rs.3,70,763/- to be paid to him. In this context, he has also submitted that as per the revised statement sent in the year 2006 such claim of the petitioner on different heads has been again 3 communicated to the University on the basis of pay fixation prepared by the Principal and to other authorities of the College. He also refers to a similar statement with regard to admissibility of the difference of gratuity and leave encashment payable to the petitioner. Mr. Parthsarathi, learned counsel for the University would submit that so far the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition is concerned the University in its counter affidavit has admitted the claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,29,182.20/- as against the claim submitted by the College of the original writ petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,70,763/- which has also been further added in the year 2006. He would also submit that as per the instruction received the payment of retirement benefit to the tune of Rs.3,35,000/- and odd had also been made to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 018766 dated 23.2.2008. In that view of the matter, the zone of dispute in this case is absolutely marginalized inasmuch as the University itself admits certain claim of the original writ petitioner and in fact has also gone to make certain payment of amount as noted above during the pendency 4 of this writ petition. Original writ petitioner is no more and the right of the widow of the original writ petitioner would survive only to the service benefits of the original writ petitioner. Considering all these aspects, this Court would direct the Registrar of University to address himself to the aforementioned grievance of the substituted petitioners with regard to payment of dues of salary and retirement benefit to which the original writ petitioner was legally entitled to draw. The Registrar of the University after examining the case of the original writ petitioner would pass a speaking order as with regard to remaining entitlement and also direct the concerned authorities to make payment of such amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If for any amount as claimed by the substituted petitioners the Registrar would not find the same payable, he would also disclose reasons and communicate the same to the substituted petitioner no. 1, widow of the original writ petitioner by registered post with acknowledge due. Registrar of the University will 5 also additionally give the break up of such amount so that the substituted petitioners can know as to what payment has been or what payment has not been found to be payable by the University to the original writ petitioner. Entire exercise however must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)