IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5331 of 2010 DR.SHIV KUMAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE SAHDEO PRASAD SINGH, R/O VYAS NAGAR, ASHIANA ROAD, PATNA. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PATNA UNIVERSITY THROUGH THE REGISTRAR , PATNA 3. THE VICE - CHANCELLOR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. 4. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. 5. THE FINANCE OFFICER, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. ----------- 07 12.10.2010 From perusal of the order sheets, it appears that serial numbers of order dated 09.08.2010, 30.08.2010, 27.09.2010 & 05.1.2010 have been wrongly typed as order numbers 2,3,4&5 respectively. The aforesaid orders stand modified to the extent that their serial numbers should be read as 3,4,5&6 respectively. Today, a counter affidavit has been filed by the University, which is an apology for a counter affidavit. It is fit to be rejected and is rejected as such. The counter affidavit only gives a lame excuse for not settling the dues of the petitioner. It does not give any figures nor contradicts the figures given by the petitioner. All it says is that the University was bound to send the claim of the petitioner to the State Government’s Auditor, the Auditor has raised certain objections because of which claim cannot be settled. This is a bogus stand. If there is any dispute then to the extent there is no dispute claim could have been settled. For a minor dispute it cannot be said that there were no claims at all which were liable to be paid. - 2 - University is apparently shirking its responsibility in the matter. University has not even bothered to refer the counter affidavit of the State Government itself, which was filed on or about 22nd July, 2010 in this matter. In paragraphs-8&9 of the counter affidavit of the State, it is stated thus:- “….08) That the deponent submits that it is the University which has to look into the grievances of the petitioner. 09) That the deponent submits that the department does not deal with any individual case of the Universities….” In view of this categorical stand of the State Government that they are not concerned with settlement of individual accounts which is the sole responsibility of the State, the stand of the University that I cannot do anything except upon sanction of the State Government is devoid of substance. Further, in view of the stand of the State Government, as noticed in their counter affidavit, State will have no objection in the matter. In that view of the matter, I have no option but to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the University to settle the full accounts of the petitioner to the extent as admitted by the University within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Finance Officer, Patna University along interest @ 12% per annum from the time payment was due till the time payment is made. This is so because the payment is neither with - 3 - regard to small amount nor for a small period, payment is due for almost a decade in which there has been substantial erosion of money value. If petitioner has any other grievance left unredressed, he could take the payment under protest and file a representation to the Finance Officer of the University, who would within 15 days consider the same and pass speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner. If it is found that any further amount is due, the same would then be paid within next 15 days to the petitioner along with interest @ 12% per annum, as directed above. Petitioner would have his remedies as against the order of the Finance officer as he may be advised. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)