IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5390 of 2010 1. DR. GULAB CHANDRA PRASAD 'ABHAY' S/O LATE RAM NAGINA PRASAD R/O PURVI RANIGHAT PROFESSORS' COLONY, ABHAY BHAWAN, MAHENDRU, P.S.- SULTANGANJ, DISTT.- PATNA- 800006 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. MAGADH UNIVERSITY, THROUGH REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA 4. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA ----------- 3 16.08.2010 The petitioner is an employee of the Magadh University. He has been posted in different constituent Colleges of the Magadh University at different times. This writ petition has been filed by him for payment of his arrears of salary which is substantial. University has filed a counter affidavit stating that the claim of the petitioner is pending before the Auditors appointed by the State. State has filed a counter affidavit which is not even worth the paper it is written on. It is bundle of contradictions and an effort to mislead the Court. Earlier order of this Court was to file comprehensive counter affidavit, instead a counter affidavit most uncertain and misleading has been filed. It is stated in paragraph-6 that State is not concerned with individual claims but at the same time they have annexed Annexure-A which is just the opposite. If State is not concerned and not responsible for individual payment, I really wonder why the Auditor has been sent by the State with clear directions that if any University pays any amount in excess what is determined by the Auditor, it would have to face consequence. What is this, if not directly interfering in each individual case and determining it contrary to what is stated in paragraph-6? All I can observe is if the State wants to 2 take this responsibility, it must go the whole way. It would be the responsibility of the State to ensure full timely payment or else reconcile itself to the calculations as made by the University. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that as apparent from the affidavit of the University, it is the claim as against an individual College that is being scrutinised but so far as his tenure in other Colleges are concerned, the matter is still to be scrutinised by the Auditor. Neither the University nor the petitioner knows when the Auditor would find time to do the balance job in respect of the petitioner. Be that as it may, I direct the Auditor, as appointed by the State, to take up and settle the full and complete account of the petitioner in all Colleges and places he has served under the University within 15 days. The detailed calculations of claims and entitlement would be communicated to the petitioner for his objections and upon objections being made, the University Auditor would decide the same giving full reasons in support of his finding within 15 days of the objections being raised. The responsibility would be wholly on the Auditor in this regard for proper compliance and the time schedule set by this Court. In case any amount is found due and payable to the petitioner as per the audit report, it would be the responsibility of the State to ensure that the same is paid to the petitioner within 15 days failing which the same shall be liable to be paid with interest of 6% for the delayed payment which the State would have to bear in entirety. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)