IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12035 of 2010 DR.BRAHMDEO SAH, S/O Late Janki Sah, R/O Mohalla- Vijay Nagar, Road No. 2 (Hanuman Nagar), P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Patna 26. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Magadh University, Both Gaya, through the Register. 4. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Both Gaya. 5. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 6. The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Both Gaya. …….Respondents. ----------- 2 25.03.2011 Annexure 19 is the order passed by the Vice Chancellor in the dispute relating to the petitioner. The issue was payment of salary to the petitioner for the period of July, 1977 to November, 1986. There is clear decision and finding given by the Vice Chancellor of the University that the petitioner was working in an affiliated college which became a constituent college in December, 1986. The responsibility or liability of the University or the State Government would accrue from the date when the college in question became constituent. Since earlier the institution was in private hand under a Managing committee, Vice - 2 - Chancellor had rightly held that there was no occasion to create any liability either on the University or the State. The stand of the Vice Chancellor as per record is that Principal and the Secretary of the college had given a clear undertaking to the University that they would have no claim for salary for the period prior to December, 1986 and this aspect has not been denied as such. This is the background under which the claim of petitioner for payment has been rejected. The insistence of the petitioner to make payment for the period prior to the college being taken over is unfair kind of claim which has been raised in the writ application. This Court is not impressed by the submission of learned counsel that on earlier occasion there was some observation which has been made by the Court in similar kind of claim and even some payments were released. Of course, the issue was never finally decided by the learned Judge in any of the proceedings, including the contempt and there is no authoritative decision on the issue. Since the decision is rational, cogent and states the actual state of affairs, petitioner has no right to claim salary or dues prior to November, 1986 before the college - 3 - became a constituent college. Writ application is dismissed as it is more a kind of wagering on behalf of the petitioner rather than assertion of his legal right. Bhrdwaj/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)