IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8387 of 2003 SHIV SHANKAR JHA, son of Late Bathu Jha, resident of village/Mohalla Goshala, Near Railway Gate No. 13(B) Police Station Raj Nagar, District Madhubani (substituted by his L.Rs). … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary Higher Education. 2. The L. N. M. University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga through its Vice- Chancellor. 3. The Vice-Chancellor of Lalit Naryan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 4. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 5. The Finance Officer, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga… Respondents. ------------- 3. 09.08.2010 I. A. No. 127 of 2006 For the reasons mentioned in this application, the prayer made therein for substituting Asha Devi in place of writ petitioner is hereby allowed. Let office make necessary correction by deleting the name of original writ petitioner, Shiv Shankar Jha and substituting it by his wife, Asha Devi. Heard counsel for the substituted petitioner and counsel for L. N. Mithila University. The original writ petitioner who had retired on 31.12.1992 had filed this writ petition after almost 11 years of his retirement claiming payment of certain pre- retiral and also post retiril benefits. He died without getting the same and as noted above has been substituted 2 by his wife. Counsel for the substituted petitioner would point out that there are various heads on which the full payment was not made to the original petitioner such as leave encashment, HRA as also some portion of salary. The total claim of the original writ petitioner is to the tune of Rs.1,42,345.78 paise In cases like this, if the University could have filed counter affidavit things could have been clear and in fact easier for effective disposal of this case. The University now has virtually adopted an attitude of non- co-operation to this Court by not filing counter affidavit. Cases like this filed in the year 2003 cannot be kept pending endlessly awaiting for filing of such counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Registrar of the University to decide the claim of the original writ-petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,42,345.78 paise and to make his task easier, the petitioner is given liberty to file a representation enclosing the copy of this order wherein she may indicate the admissibility of amount of different heads so 3 that the Registrar of the University on its verification can at least take a decision for payment of the admitted amount. Whatever amount is found admissible and payable by the Registrar of the College the same must the paid to the substituted petitioner within a period of three months from the date of such decision taken by the Registrar who must take decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If any amount is not found payable by the Registrar, he would not only record reasons for the same but he would also communicate the same to the substituted petitioner by registered post with acknowledge due within the same period of three months from the date of passing of the order. Let it be made clear that this court has not decided the claim of the entitlement of the petitioner and the issue has to be decided by the Registrar of the University strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) 4