IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.404 of 2011 Dr. Prabhash Pd. Verma & Ors Versus Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice Chancellor WITH MJC No.1621 of 2011 Parmanand Singh Versus Dr. K.N.Dubey, The Vice-Chancellor WITH MJC No.520 of 2011 Dr. Krishna Nand Versus Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice Chancellor WITH MJC No.1672 of 2011 Prof. Jitendra Pd. Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors WITH MJC No.1674 of 2011 Sri Narendra Kumar Singh & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors WITH MJC No.1671 of 2011 Kashi Nath Mandal Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors WITH MJC No.4518 of 2010 Laxman Mishra Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. WITH MJC No.594 of 2011 Krishna Nand Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. WITH MJC No.925 of 2011 Dr. Durga Sharan Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. WITH MJC No.1349 of 2011 Taranand Pd. Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. WITH 2 MJC No.1477 of 2011 Dr. Meera Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. WITH MJC No.1735 of 2011 Dr. Manazir Hasan & Ors Versus Dr. K.N.Dubey & Ors WITH MJC No.1806 of 2011 Dr. Murli Murari Pd. Versus Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice-Chancel WITH MJC No.1807 of 2011 Dr. Pramila Pd. Versus Dr. K.N. Dubey, The Vice- Cha WITH MJC No.1971 of 2011 Dr. Maya Bhattacharjee Versus Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice Chancel WITH MJC No.1759 of 2011 Akhileshwar Jha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors WITH MJC No.2256 of 2011 Dr. Kanak Kumar Pandey Versus Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice-Chancel WITH MJC No.2270 of 2011 Dr. Balkrishna Jha Versus Dr. K.N.Dubey The Vice-Chancel WITH MJC No.2652 of 2011 Prof. Brajendra Bhushan Pandey & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors WITH MJC No.2123 of 2011 Banshi Dhar Pandey Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3 04 03.08.2011 It is most unfortunate that even though this Court passed a detailed judgment as far back as on 20.08.2010 holding that the age of superannuation of the teachers of all the Universities in Bihar stood extended from 62 to 65 years with effect from 30th June, 2010, some of the Vice-Chancellors think that they are not bound to obey the said directions. It was a judgment in rem. It applied to all similarly situated persons whether they were writ petitioners or not in any University but some Vice-Chancellors like the T.M. Bhagalpur University has decided that he is above the law not bound by this judgment. Notwithstanding the said judgment having been delivered almost a year back, we have hundreds of contempt applications being filed for compliance. Learned Lawyers for the petitioners are at pains to state that in some cases defiant attitude had been taken that unless personal appearance are ordered in contempt proceedings or unless specific orders are not issued in contempt proceedings the University will not implement the order. The discretion to implement the order of this Court, it is submitted, that has “premium” attached to it. I wonder whose wisdom and “what purpose” this is being done. Let it be noted that on the last occasion this Court, being fed up at recklessness attitude of the Vice-Chancellor, directed that unless by the next date full compliance is shown Vice-Chancellor and other Officers of the University would not draw its remuneration. The result is that apart from those petitioners, who had filed the contempt 4 applications only this order was passed, the order is not being complied in other cases, which only confirms that is being submitted by the petitioners. Apart from law and the legal aspect of the matter, I may refer to the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, which seems to have been murdered by the Vice-Chancellor no sooner it was born. Apart from other Clause-4.C (1) of the Bihar State Litigation Policy which deals with covered matters clearly obliges the State instrumentality, I think, the Vice-Chancellor is not beyond the State instrumentality, to settle the claims in accordance with similar decided cases without forcing persons to go to the Court. This is the law of the land where a judgment in rem binds everybody including people who are not party to the litigation but it seems this University defies all norms. I may mention that two cases in contempt list in which earlier orders could not be passed has been mentioned. Though they are on the board, but no compliance has been made because there is no specific order in contempt for compliance of order in the writ petition. This proves what the petitioners complain. I may also note that advisedly I have refrained from noting many serious allegations being made by learned counsels for the petitioners. Ordinarily, I should have referred this matter to the State Vigilance Department for criminal investigation against the officials of the University because the allegations are too serious but in the hope that sanity would return to the 5 University, I refrain from recording or ordering any such action for the present. Mr. Keshari, learned counsel appearing for the T.M. Bhagalpur University submits that all the allegations as made by the petitioners and their counsels are misconceived. The only reason why compliance of order of this Court has not been made is because University has no funds for compliance on this head. In my view, it is the most misconceived stand taken deliberately to mislead the Court. All these persons were teachers for whom salaries were being duly sent by the State. All this Court said was as they would continue as such question of making new provision does not arise. It is a blatant false plea raised by the University. It is not the case of University that this budgetary allocation stood reduced as a consequence of superannuation of these teachers. Mr. Keshari then submits that so far as cases listed for orders today are concerned with exception M.J.C. No.4518 of 2010 which deals with L.N. Mithila University, M.J.C. No.2652 of 201, which deals with V.K.S. University and M.J.C. No.2123 of 2011, which though of T.M. Bhagalpur University, compliance has not been made as it has come in this list for the first time thereby admitting that unless positive orders are passed by this Court in contempt proceedings there would be no compliance, compliance has been made in all other cases. The petitioners have, thus, proved themselves right. 6 Learned counsel for the L.N. Mithila University and V.K.S. University states that they have complied with the order. So far as V.K.S. University is concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel for the University that it has made full compliance and cheques had been issued to the Principal for payment to the petitioner which in all probabilities has already been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not very sure of the position. While this part of the order was dictated some of the petitioners pointed out that so far as T.M. Bhagalpur University is concerned, though University has sent cheques for payment to the petitioners in whose favour orders have been passed in the contempt proceedings, they are being withheld at the level of the Principal for reasons which this Court cannot note. It is unfortunate that at every stage a premium is being attached for implementing the orders of this Court. The blatant manner in which these things are happening does call for stern action. I, therefore, direct that the judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11348 of 2010, which was disposed of on 20.08.2010, applied to all teachers of all Universities. All Universities were required to comply with it, that is, all teachers who were in service on 30th June, 2010 would continue as such up to the age of 65 years with all consequential benefits. Whether they were writ petitioners or not whether they have filed contempt petitions or not whether this Court has passed orders in their favour or not and till all those dues are not cleared of every 7 individual teachers the respective Vice-Chancellors and the Registrars would not draw any remuneration whatsoever. The Court is passing this order because of the exceptional circumstances created by the Vice-Chancellors. It is further expected that not only would be the arrears be cleared but like any other teacher in the University they would be continue to get their full remuneration in time except for M.J.C. No.4518 of 2010 which deals with L.N. Mithila University and M.J.C. No.2123 of 2011 which is from Bhagalpur University. All these matters with the aforesaid directions stands disposed of except both these matters being M.J.C. No.4518 of 2010 and M.J.C. No.2123 of 2011. Let both these matters be listed under the heading “For Orders” on 10th of August, 2011 for full compliance. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Hon’ble Chancellor and the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna for their knowledge and action if necessary. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)