IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13715 of 2002 RAMESH MISHRA, son of late Shobhakant Mishra, resident of village Kashipur, P.S. Town, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Commissioner cum Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 3. Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga 4. Finance Officer, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga … Respondents. ----------- 3. 30.6.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) U.G.C. differential of pay from January, 1986 to December, 1989 Rs.34510=52. (ii) Differential of salary due to promotion from February, 1985 to December, 1989 Rs. 11,187=59. (iii) House rent allowance from October, 1986 to December, 1989 Rs.3,550/-. (iv) Central Dearness Allowance from July, 1986 to January, 1999 Rs. 1,80,474=80. (v) 30% arrear of salary from August, 1993 to June 1996 Rs. 85,680=92. (vi) Interim relief from June, 1983 to January, 1999 Rs. 51,707/-. (vii) Interest upon the entire dues 2 amount from the date they became due till the dates of their respective payment.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner while holding the post of Reader in the Department of Botany in Samastipur College, Samastipur, a constituent unit of L.N.Mithila University, had retired on 31.1.1999 and yet his arrears of salary, house rent allowance, dearness allowance, interim relief etc. for his period of service ranging between February, 1985 to January, 1989 have not been paid as yet. He would submit that there is no dispute with regard to either entitlement or working of the petitioner and in fact it is only on account of slackness on the part of the respondents that the payment of admissible dues as claimed in this writ application has not been made. Counsel for the University would submit that he has got no instructions. He would further submit that in the year 2005 a letter was sent to the University for giving instructions but that has not been responded, as such, he is not in a position to assist this Court. He would only advise 3 this Court that it will be proper for this Court to direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation for redressal of his grievance. In the opinion of this Court something has got amiss in whole University. The authorities of the University have taken it for granted that this Court will keep on adjourning the case to the pleasure of the authorities of the University and their counsel. This case was filed on 9.12.2002 with two copies of the writ petition served on the counsel for the University. Thereafter the case was placed on 6.1.2003 and in the last eight years if the authorities of the university have not even bothered to give instruction to their counsel much less file a counter affidavit this Court cannot keep on waiting endlessly for filing counter affidavit. The slackness on the part of the University in conducting its cases before this Court is writ large on the face of record and therefore, this Court would direct the Vice Chancellor of the university to take a firm action so that a 4 counter affidavit is filed in each and every case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such writ application filed by their counsel in this Court. In future if it is found by this Court that the counter affidavit has not been filed by the authorities of the University, it is the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar who shall be held personally responsible for violation of this order. Coming to the merits of this case it would be very difficult for this Court to know as to which of the relief being claimed in this writ application is legally admissible to the petitioner. None-the-less as the petitioner has retired some 11 years back and has his grievance with regard to entitlement of salary, house rent allowance, interim relief and dearness allowance, the University must look into the same and take a final decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for payment of any amount as claimed in this writ 5 Surendra/ application which has not yet been paid to the petitioner, the same must be paid within a period of next one month from the date of the order of the Vice Chancellor in this regard. In the event anyone of the aforementioned demand of payment as claimed in this writ application is denied the respondent University and its Vice Chancellor will be under obligation to record reasons for the same and communicate to the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be denied only payment of such amount to which he is either not entitled in law or has not been paid to any other working/ retired employee due to want or release of fund from the State Government. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Hon’ble Chancellor of Bihar for his information. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 6