IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19019 of 2008 Ashwini Kumar Singh, son of Late Hilish Narain Singh, resident of Village Jatwaliya, P.S. Kundawa Chainpur, District East Champaran, Motihari………………………………………………………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, through the Vice-Chancellor of the said University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 2. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 3. Gurukul Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya, Bairgania, District Sitamarhi, through the Secretary of the Governing Body of the said College. 4. The Principal, Gurukul Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya, Bairgania, District Sitamarhi. 5. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna……………………………………………………………….………Respondents ---------------------------------- 3 12.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Today, petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit. Along with the affidavit, one letter of the Government addressed to the Kameshwar Singh Darbhnaga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga contained in Memo No.1433 dated 27th April, 2010, is annexed as Annexure-8. This letter shows that the Government has released fund for payment of arrears of salary to teaching and non-teaching employees of specifically named colleges who were working against sanctioned 2 posts. In respect of the college of petitioner i.e. Gurukul Sanskrit College Bairgania, Sitamarhi it is mentioned that ten teaching posts are sanctioned and out of the ten, 7 posts are filled up and for payment of arrears of salary to holders of the 7 sanctioned posts, an amount of Rs.6,22,008/- has been released. Similarly, it has been mentioned that out of 4 non- teaching sanctioned posts, 3 are filled up and for payment of arrears of salary to holders of the 3 posts, an amount of Rs.87,393/ has been released. Thus, as per this Government letter, the College has only 10 sanctioned teaching posts and 4 sanctioned posts of non-teaching employees. Out of them, as on the date of this letter, 7 sanctioned posts of teaching and 3 sanctioned posts of non-teaching employees stand filled up. The letter shows that the relevant date for payment of salary etc. of holders of sanctioned posts has to be taken as 01.01.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was holding one of the sanctioned posts out of 4 sanctioned 3 non-teaching posts. He superannuated in 2009. But as in this letter, relevant date has been fixed as 01.01.2006, on which date, petitioner was holding one of the sanctioned posts, he was entitled for payment of arrears of salary. Learned counsel for the University submits that since petitioner’s services were never finally approved and he was never absorbed formally against any sanctioned post for non-teaching employees, he could not be considered for payment of arrears of salary. He submits that prayer of the petitioner in the writ application is for absorption in the College on the basis of staffing pattern and consequent payment of salary and not payment of salary on working or having worked in the College against a sanctioned post. This is a question of fact as to whether petitioner was holding one of the already sanctioned posts, or not. From other documents placed on record with the writ application and the supplementary affidavit, petitioner has not been able to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that he was 4 holder of one of 4 sanctioned posts of non- teaching employees of the College. For any payment of his arrears of salary from the fund allotted by Annexure-8, petitioner is required to establish before the University by supporting documents to the satisfaction of the University authorities that he was holding one out of the already 4 sanctioned posts in the College. If he can do so, definitely he will be eligible for payment of arrears of salary and, if not, he may be in difficulty as no fund has been released by the Government for payment against any other post than the said 4 sanctioned posts. Petitioner is, therefore, directed to file a representation before the Vice Chancellor of the University in this regard with all supporting documents in his possession within four weeks from today. If the petitioner makes out a case, to the satisfaction of the Vice Chancellor, that he is legally entitled for payment of arrears of salary from the fund allotted by the Government through said letter dated 27.04.2010, the Vice Chancellor shall surely pass appropriate orders in that regard 5 preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation. Since the dispute raised in this case, as noticed above, is a dispute of fact, it has to be established on the basis of records either way and hence it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims in favour or against either of parties. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)