IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10997 of 2002 Rameshwar Prasad, Son of late Mahabir Prasad, Resident of Nayatola, Madhopur, P.S. bakhtiarpur, District Patna. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Old Secretariat, Patna, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna. 3. The Magadh University, Both Gaya through its Registrar, P.S. Bodha Gaya, District Gaya. 4. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya. 5. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya. 6. The Principal, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Bakhtiarpur, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District Patna. ------- Respondents ----------- 3 25.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner being quite innocuous reads as follows:- “1. That this application is directed for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the petitioner’s representations regarding fixation of his pay by the department of Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar 2 and payment of salary and allowances alongwith arrears and further commanding the Respondents to pay to the petitioner arrears and salary as is found admissible accordingly forthwith.” The fact that the petitioner has retired from service during pendency of the writ application would only go to show that now the matter has become only confined for the purposes either claiming of salary or post retirement benefit. The grievance of the petitioner in fact also is very limited that whatever salary was to be checked by the University and if at all to be chequed up by the State had to be done in a fixed time frame. He has also in this regard invited attention of this Court towards the series of representations filed by the petitioner to the authority of the University and the State Government. Counsel for the University, who has not even filed a counter affidavit in a space of last eight years, very conveniently has tried to shift the blame on the State Government by pointing out that one of the representations of the petitioner was in fact 3 addressed to the Secretary of the Higher Education Department and therefore, it would be presumed that it is the duty of the Secretary, Higher Education Department to look into the grievance of the petitioner. It is quite unfortunate that the authorities of the University, in stead of filing a counter affidavit, have tried to mislead this Court on this score. The moment this Court would find that the petitioner was a teaching employee of a constituent college, there would be nothing for this Court to even envisage that the State Government had any duty to fix the salary. The employer, being the University, it was the duty of the University to fix the salary and if any verification was to be made by the State Government of such alary fixation, again it was the duty of the University to get the matter expedited. The petitioner could not have been made subject matter of this wrangle between the University and the State Government. Be that as it may, as the counsel for the State Government, who too has not 4 filed any counter affidavit and has now tried to shift the blame on the University by taking a plea that the necessary instruction in fact has already been issued to the University for making salary fixation as per the rules and regulations, this Court would direct with the official respondents to take its decision at any early date. As noted above, it is the petitioner who is suffering in this game of ping-pong between the University and the State Government. The payment of petitioner’s arrear of salary and now also the retirement benefit have been kept hanging in balance while both the authorities of the State Government and the University have conveniently tried to accuse each other. Considering all these aspects, this Court would direct the respondents to ensure that the salary fixation of the petitioner in accordance with law is done positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and whatever admitted amount is found payable to the petitioner, if not paid earlier, the 5 same also must be paid in the next three months. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)