IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.484 of 2011 SACHINDRA KUMAR SINGH, son of late Vishwanath Prasad Singh, resident of village Lachminiya, P.O. Gamhariya, P.S. Gamhariya, District – Madhepura. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar. 3. The Vice Chancellor. B R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Registrar, B R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 03 15.03.2011 Petitioner, a Professor and Head of the Department of Philosophy, worked under B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. He has since then superannuated on 31st December, 2008. He has been making repeated claims on the respondents for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him, which is the cost of angioplasty he has undergone in Delhi, amounting to Rs.2,91,723/-. Since the claim has not been settled till date, the writ application came to be filed on his behalf. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the Registrar of the University has written many a letters to the State authorities for appropriate guidelines or direction for payment but as usual there is a deafening silence by the State. He further contends that there is no dispute with regard to the entitlement or the claim raised by the petitioner but still the bureaucratic red tape has been tightened so fast that it has not been unknotted and decision taken. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 2 the University. Their stand is that they are bound by the directions of the State. Till they give a go ahead they cannot make any payment from the funds, at the level of the university. Any payment will have to be made on the direction of the State as it is the State which releases money to the University for payment of all kinds. Counsel for the State has failed to file counter affidavit. He informs the Court that a letter has been written to the authorities but he did not get any response on the issue. He claims that further adjournment of six weeks should be granted to enable him to file counter affidavit. This writ was adjourned on 12.1.2011. Matter could be taken up only today, i.e. many weeks after four weeks which was initially granted to the State. There is no surety that another six weeks will have the required effect on the respondent State. Since the decision will have to be taken at the level of the State Government and entitlement of the petitioner as such is not an issue but only authorization, the writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, that on presentation of a copy of this order, he shall look into the matter, examine the various recommendations which have been made at the level of the University and then issue the necessary directions within a period of three moths from the date of production of a 3 copy of this order. If any part of the claim, according to the Principal Secretary, does not come within the ambit of the entitlement, he must record the reasons along with the requisite rules, which comes in the way of payment to the petitioner. All this must be done within the time frame fixed. The writ application is disposed of with above direction. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)