IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2196 of 2007 DINESH KUMAR SINGH, son of late Radhe Shyam Singh, resident of village Ojhawalia, P.S. Piro, District Bhojpur … Petitioner Versus 1. VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, Ara through the Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara 2. The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara 3. The Principal, A.S.College, Bikramganj, Rohtas … Respondents ----------- 4. 13.9.2010 Having heard Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.B.Sinha, counsel for Veer Kunwar Singh University as with regard to the following prayer: “The present application is for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents authority to pay the petitioner the salary and other consequential benefits for the period 12.1.2000 to 15.12.2005 as in spite of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 22.7.2005 in C.W.J.C.No. 2483 of 2000 filed by the petitioner, by which the order dated 12.1.2000 terminating the service of the petitioner has been quashed, the petitioner has not been paid his salary till the date although he has files several representations from time to time for payment of the same but without any effect. And/or pass such other 2 order or orders, as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” this Court is of the firm view that the University and its authorities cannot play the game of hide and seek in the name of verification of the last admissible salary legally payable to the petitioner. The submission of Mr. Sinha that the University has handed over the papers relating to the petitioner to the audit team of the State Government does not impress this Court. Here is a simple case of a person, the petitioner, who was removed from service by an order dated 12.1.2000 terminating his service under the orders of the University. Such termination was found to be unjustified and was accordingly quashed by this Court by the order dated 22.7.2005 in C.W.J.C.No. 2483/2000 wherein it was held as follows: “As copy of advertisement has been appended which has been made by the competent authority i.e. the University, selection process is not denied, selection of candidates was there, the same being only one post in each unit i.e. the college in question, if no reservation was required to be done perhaps this Court feels that even if otherwise 3 a vested right of a person was required to be taken away, the same could not be done behind his/her back, as admittedly has been accepted to have been done, in view of the instruction received by the counsel for the University. The petitioners were neither noticed nor heard and the order prejudicial to the petitioners have been passed behind their back. This Court has no hesitation in quashing the same. As such, Annexure 5 and 6 (C.W.J.C.No. 1799/2000), Annexures 6 and 7 (C.W.J.C.No. 2483/2000) and Annexures 7 (C.W.J.C.No. 2180/2000) respectively are quashed and the petitioners be deemed to be continuing in service in view of previous appointment letters. This would not preclude the University, if they so wish to proceed against them in accordance with law after providing them an opportunity of hearing.” Admittedly in the counter affidavit nothing has been said that after the order of this Court dated 22.7.2005 in C.W.J.C.No. 2483/2000 any further proceeding was continued against the petitioner and as such, the petitioner cannot be now deprived 4 payment of salary only on the ground of verification of his last amount of salary. True it is that if the petitioner’s salary prior to his termination was being paid in the pay scale to which he was not entitled, that can be gone into separately but whatever salary of the petitioner is admitted by the University and in whichever pay scale, at least that should have been paid after reinstatement of the petitioner in service in terms of the order of this Court dated 22.7.2005. This Court would, accordingly, direct the respondents particularly the Registrar of the University (respondent no.2) to ensure that the payment of admittedly salary of the petitioner for the period 12.1.2000 to 15.12.2005 is made positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 5