IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8300 of 2010 1. PROF. BINOD KUMAR SINHA S/O LATE BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD R/O 223, TRIVENI APPARTMENT, P.S.- BUDDHA COLONY, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA-1 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE REGISTRAR B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 6 5.10.2010 The petitioner retired as a Reader in English from B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. He was in a constituent college. He has come for settlement of his pre retiral dues appertain to difference in pay scale upon implementation of UGC scale starting from 1.1.196 to 31.5.2001 when he superannuated. Petitioner, it is submitted, has claimed to the University many a time giving month wise details. According to the petitioner, the amount due is Rs. 3,86,678/-. On behalf of the State, a counter affidavit was filed in which it is sated that the State has released the substantial fund to the University and the State is not concerned with the individual cases. It therefore chooses not to deny or confirm the amount, as claimed by the petitioner. University, on the other hand, has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that after University examined the claim, it has forwarded the same to the Audit Team of the State 2 Government. Thus, as per University’s own counter affidavit, University does not dispute the amount, as claimed by the petitioner but only want the State Auditor to certify the same. As noted above, State has filed two counter affidavits, both in which State has categorically stated that it has nothing to do with the payments to be made to individual and it has already released the payment amount to the university. It has left to the university to decide the liability in each individual case. Court with Constraint has noted a diabolical stand in earlier order. In the University’s counter affidavit, it is stated that the State Auditor wants certain papers with regard to petitioner’s service career. As noted above, petitioner retired in the year 2001. In 2010 the State Government’s Auditor seeks copy certifying his date of birth, his joining as a Lecturer, his promotion order, his paper with regard to his date of retirement and as the petitioner was on leave without pay with lien paper in relation thereto. I fail to see the reason or relevance of any of these papers nor do I see any relevance in demanding these papers ten years after the petitioner has superannuated. As noted above, State has taken categorical stand in its counter affidavit that it is not concerned with the individual payments. If that be so, the State Auditor cannot demand any paper or sit over the account, as approved by the University. University would thus be obliged 3 to make payment as it has found to be correct the same cannot be challenged by the State Auditor or the state for that matter. Let University make payments as it has chosen not to contradict the same, within one week from today along with interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum for inordinate delay in making the settlement .It shall be the responsibility of the Vice Chancellor and the Finance Officer of the University to ensure the payment, as above. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application is disposed of. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)