IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 2642 of 2010 1. DR.PIYUS KAMAL SINHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O DR. LAKSHMI PD. SINHA R/O MOH.- C/O ANIL KUMAR, HIG 76, CHANAKAYAPURI, HOUSING COLONY, P.S.- RAMPUR, DISTT.- GAYA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER DEPTT. OF HISTORY, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA 2. DR.PIYUS KAMAL SINHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O DR. LAKSHMI PD. SINHA R/O MOH.- C/O ANIL KUMAR, HIG 76, CHANAKAYAPURI, HOUSING COLONY, P.S.- RAMPUR, DISTT.- GAYA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER DEPTT. OF HISTORY, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA Versus 1. THE V.C.,MAGADH UNIVERSITY GAYA 2. THE REGISTRAR MAGADH UNIVERSITY, GAYA 3. THE FINANCE OFFICER MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA 4. THE PRINCIPAL JAGAT NARAYAN LAL COLLEGE PATNA WITH CWJC No 4692 of 2010 1. DR. NEERAJ KUMAR S/O LATE G.D. SINGHAL R/O MOHALLA- 312, A.P. COLONY, P.S.- RAMPUR, DISTT.- GAYA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY THROUGH THE REGISTRAR MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA 4. THE FINANCE OFFICER MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA 5. THE PRINCIPAL, A.M. COLLEGE, GAYA ----------- 3 16.08.2010 In these two writ petitions, University has filed a counter affidavit fairly stating that as per the calculation of the Auditors appointed by the State Government, payment of the petitioners have been recommended to be made and cheques for their dues, as assessed, have been forwarded to the Colleges for payment which they can receive immediately. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed rejoinder clearly stating that as per earlier calculation of the College and the University itself, the amount being shown to be paid to the petitioners is different and insufficient though they admit that substantially the payment 2 has been made. It is now a matter of simple accounting. I, therefore, direct the University to give detailed accounts in support of the payment being made, detailed so that a common person can understand. If petitioners have any grievance against that, they would represent in this regard to the Finance Officer of the University who would decide the same objectively without being cowed down by the calculation of the Auditors. He would be required to give a finding as to whether payment is justified or not, if so with clear grounds. He would do the same within 15 days of the representation being filed. If the same is not disposed of within the time-frame as fixed by the Court, the Finance Officer would be liable for contempt. The order so passed by the Finance Officer would be communicated immediately to the petitioners who may take such other remedy as may be available to them. Once the Finance Officer is of the view that the State Auditor was wrong in any manner, the judgment of the Finance Officer would be final and the University and the State would, thus, be liable to pay the demand without any further demur within one month from the date of order. With these observations, these two writ petitions are disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)