IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4072 of 2009 PROF.KRISHNA NAND CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.14402 of 2008 PROF.ISHWAR CHANDRA PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.14413 of 2008 PROF.DR.RUP NARAYAN CHAUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.14416 of 2008 PROF.SUDIST MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.15162 of 2008 PROF TIRTH NATH MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.16969 of 2008 MOSOMAT ANITA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.17413 of 2008 MASOMAT AMBIKA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.18013 of 2008 PROF.SUDHIR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.18362 of 2008 PROF.GHANSHYAM PRASAD - 2 - Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.18427 of 2008 CHANDRA SHEKHAR PD.MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.18477 of 2008 RAMASHISH MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.126 of 2009 PROF.RATNESHWAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.128 of 2009 PROF.RAM CHANDRA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.231 of 2009 PROF.ARUN KUMAR ROY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.4064 of 2009 SAHDEO JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.4409 of 2009 PROF.(DR.)DEVENDRA THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.4419 of 2009 PROF.(DR.)CHANDRA SHEKHAR MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- - 3 - with CWJC No.4420 of 2009 PROF.JAI SHANKAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.13094 of 2006 HARI NARAIN MAHTO Versus THE V.C.,L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.4765 of 2009 PROF.NAGENDRA MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.4366 of 2009 PARMA NAND ROY Versus THE V.C.,L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS. ----------- with CWJC No.4481 of 2009 URMILA PRASAD Versus THE V.C.,L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.1067 of 2009 DR.(MISS)DEBIKA MAITRA Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.14236 of 2008 PROF.LILA KANT JHA Versus THE V.C.,L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS. ----------- with CWJC No.18645 of 2008 PROF.GUNA KANT JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.4941 of 2009 RATNESHWAR JHA & ANR - 4 - Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.17114 of 2008 BHUBNESHWAR SINGH Versus THE L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY &ORS ----------- with CWJC No.17660 of 2008 MD.MURTUZA Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.12750 of 2008 ARUN KUMAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.5173 of 2007 USHA SHARMA Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.16003 of 2008 UPENDRA NARAYAN MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.16694 of 2008 JAYANDRA PRASAD SHAHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.18625 of 2008 BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- with CWJC No.14409 of 2008 MAHADEO PRASAD Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS ----------- - 5 - with CWJC No.5189 of 2009 PROF.DINESHWAR LAL DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- And CWJC No.16646 of 2008 CHITRANJAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 23.04.2009 As in all these writ applications the relief prayed for is more or less similar, with consent of the parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In all these writ applications the grievance(s) of the petitioner(s) are with regard to payment of their retiral dues along with other emoluments incidental thereto besides other claim which according to the petitioner(s) they are entitled to get. In some of the cases it has been alleged that despite representing for the same the respondent authorities have not considered and disposed of the claim of the petitioner(s) and in the above circumstances, petitioner(s) have been compelled to approach this Court by filing writ applications. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University as yet in any of the case. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner - 6 - that for redressal of the grievance(s) of the petitioner(s) this Court may permit them to file separate representation/ fresh representation giving details of the claim before the respondent Vice Chancellor of the University within a period of four weeks from today along with the certified copy of the present order as well as the copy of the relevant documents in support of the claim as also in respect of those claims which have not been raised in these writ applications, but have accrued in favour of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, if such representation(s) is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent-Vice Chancellor shall consider/re-consider the grievance(s) of the petitioner(s) and dispose of the same by a speaking order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months on receipt of such representation(s). In case the representation of the petitioner(s) find favour, the respondent-Vice Chancellor shall issue further order(s)/direction(s) forthwith within a period of six weeks thereafter so that the grievance(s) of the petitioner(s) could be redressed without delay. It is further directed that upon consideration of the representation(s), if any claim is found not admissible as per the rule, the Vice Chancellor shall indicate the - 7 - reasons for declining the claim in the order to be passed on the representation. While passing such order the aforesaid authority shall also consider with regard to payment of reasonable interest over the amount which was found payable, but could not be paid earlier. The order(s) passed on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioner(s) by post under registered cover. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University submits that although the claim of the petitioner(s) may be correct and justified, but even then for want of sufficient fund, they may not be in position to make payment of the admissible dues of the petitioner(s) unless necessary fund is released by the State Government. In this connection, the concerned authority of the University is directed to send immediately fresh requisition after the same is duly audited and verified by the auditor deputed by the State Government in the University for clearing the outstanding dues of the claims pursuant to the decision on the representation(s) of the petitioner(s). The requisition shall be made to the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, who shall arrange immediately for release of the fund on receipt of the requisition after the same is being - 8 - examined and if found not already released shall release as per the rule. It is expected that the concerned authority shall dispose of the representation as early as possible and not necessarily by the time limit fixed by this Court. All the above noted writ applications are disposed of with the above observation(s)/direction(s). Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the University and to the Advocate General, Bihar, Patna for the needful. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)