IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5887 of 2002 1. Chandra Pratap Narain Chaudhary, son of Late shiv Narain Chouhdary, Resident of Village Mahisi, P.S. Mahisi, District Saharsa. 2. Govindjee Pathak, Son of late Sukh Chandra Pathak, Resident of Village Habibhauar, P.S. Bahera. 3. Krishna Kant Thakur, Son of Sri Ram Kishore Thakur, Resident of Village Majhaura, P.S. Bahera, District Darbhanga. 4. Shyam Chandra Jha, Son of Sri Chaturbhuj Jha, Resident of Village Ramouli, P.S. Bahera, District Darbhanga. 5. (a) Urmila Mishra, S/o Late Ashok Chandra Mishra. (b) Shishir Mishra, S/o Late Ashok Chandra Mishra. (c) Basant Mishra, S/o Late Ashok Chandra Mishra. All 5(a,b&c) are resident of Village Nabtola, P.S. Pandaul, District Madhubani. ---------- petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 5. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. ---------- Respondents ----------- 7 21.07.2010 Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) For directing the respondents to pay to the petitioners the arrears of salary from July, 1999 up to date with all necessary allowance etc. (ii) For quashing the letter No. 714 dated 14.7.1999 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-10) to 2 Respondent No.5 communicating therein that the Staffing Patter given therein was found only considered admissible for preparation of Budget. (iii) For quashing letter No. 1050 dated 27.9.99 issued by Respondent No.3 (Annexure-12) written to Respondent No.5 by which it was communicated that no post other than Staffing Pattern given by letter No. 714 dated 14.7.99 could be considered, admissible for payment of salary. (iv) For quashing letter No. 1094 dated 4.10.99 issued by Respondent No.3 (Annexure-12A) written to Respondent No.5 communicating therein that the direction given by letter No. 714 dated 14.7.99 must be followed. (v) For quashing the office order issued by Respondent No.5 bearing Memo No. 9382 dated 7.10.99 (Annexure-13) by which University Memo No. 9337-9338/99, 9337-58/99 and 9339/99 dated 6.10.99 was stayed and it was directed to strictly comply with the instructions issued by the State Government vide letters dated 14.7.99 and 27.9.99.” From reading of the aforesaid prayer as also the submission of Mr. Jha, it would be apparent that while the University at one 3 point of time had not only treated the post of the petitioners to be covered within the Staffing Pattern but had also made payment of salary to the petitioners for long 19 years from 1980 to 1999, but in fact, had also made recommendation to the State Government for treating the petitioners to be covered by sanctioned posts under Staffing Pattern and thus, eligible for grant of salary as would be evident from the letter of the Registrar of the University dated 10.3.2002 (Annexure- 21). Mr. Jha, therefore, would submit that similar matter has been remitted by this Court by an order dated 13th April, 2007 in the case of Anand Kumar Jha and Ramashish Ojha in CWJC No. 16125 of 2001 and CWJC No. 2325 of 2002 respectively, this Court should also remit the matter to the State Government for considering the prayer made by the petitioners with regard to payment of salary from the year 1999 onwards. Learned counsel for the University on the other hand would submit that the payment of salary to the petitioners cannot be made in view of the order issued by the 4 State Government restricting payment of salary only on the sanctioned post and not to the post governed by the Staffing Pattern. Counsel for the State, with the help of the counter affidavit, would submit that the Government is not supposed to release payment of salary of the petitioners or any other person, who is not found to be working against the sanctioned post. In the opinion of this Court, there is something amiss in the whole concept of sanction of post vis-à-vis Staffing Pattern approved by the Government. Way back in the year 1981, when the State Government had accepted the Staffing Pattern for each of the constituent college, it was incumbent upon the State Government to also consider the admissibility of the sanctioned post so made part of the Staffing Pattern. For example, in the college of the petitioners, which is a constituent college, as per the schedule of sanctioned post, there is not a single post of Class-III employee in library but when the State Government has taken a decision of funding the salary of teaching and non- 5 teaching employee of the constituent colleges, it will have to also develop some sort of mechanism to see that in the constituent colleges not only the class should run but even its library also function. It would be infact a paradox to even conceive of a college without a library. That being so, this Court would direct the respondents to reconsider this aspect of the matter as to whether for the college, in question, there would be admissibility of post of Library Assistant on which the petitioners (barring petitioner no.5) are admittedly continuing for long 30 years and in fact have also received payment of salary for 19 years. Accordingly, this application is disposed of in similar terms of the order of this Court dated 13th April, 2007 in CWJC No.5774 of 2000 and its analogous cases. It is, however, made clear that such a decision by the Government with regard to the admissibility of the post of Library Assistant in the colleges, in question, of the petitioners must be taken within a period 6 of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In order to expedite the matter, the petitioners are given liberty to file their individual self contained representation along with a copy of this order claiming their payment of salary for the period 1999 onwards and such representation(s) should be disposed of afresh by a separate order in case of each of the petitioners by the Secretary of the Higher Education Department in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)