IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10612 of 2003 1. Dr. Jagdish Prasad Yadav, son of late Sagam Mukhiya, Resident of Village Dullipatti, Police Station, Jay Nagar, Distt. Madhubani, at present posted as Principal of C.M.J. College, Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Police Station Khutauna, District Madhubani. 2. Harish Chandra Pathak, son of Sri Udit Narayan Pathak, Resident of Village Gajhara, Police Station Ladaria, Distt. Madhubani, at present posted as Vice Principal of C.M.J. College Donwari Hat Khutauan, Police Station Khutauna, District Madhubani. 3. Gulam Kuddus, son of Gulam Nabi, Resident of Village Kharua, Police Station Darbhanga Sadar, Distt. Darbhanga at present posted as Reader of C.M.C. College Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. 4. Dr. Kamal Nath Jha, Son of late Upendra Jha, Resident of village Barhara, Police Station Babubarhi, Distt. Madhubani, at present posted as Reader of C.M.J. College, Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Police Station Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. 5. Ram Vilas Mahto, Son of late Munilal Mahto, Resident of Village Prahladpur, Police Station Muzaffarpur Sadar, Distt. Muzaffarpur at present posted as Reader of C.M.J. Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Police Station Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. 6. Uttam Lal Thakur, son of Sri Baldeo Thakur, Resident of Village Ladania, Police Station Ladania, Distt. Madhubani, at present posted as Reader of C.M.J. Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Police Station Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. 7. Jay Bhadra Singh, son of late Janardan Singh, Resident of Village Deorh, Police Station Ghoghardiha, Distt. Madhubani, at present posted as Reader of C.M.J. Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Police Station Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. 8. Dr. Mahendra Prasad Singh, Son of Sri Yadu Singh, Resident of Village Ekhari, P.S. Ladania, Distt. Madhubani, at present posted as Reader of C.M.J. Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Police Station Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. 9. Dr. Ram Awadh Sharma, Son of Sri Atab Sharma, Resident of Village Banak-Rohtas (Shahabad), at present posted as Reader of C.M.J. Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Police Station Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. 10. Shambhu Nath Singh, son of late Nageshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Ekhari, Police Station Ladania, Distt. Madhubani, at present posted as Head Clerk of C.M.J. Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Police Station Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. 11. Ram Khelavan Singh, son of Gangai Singh, resident of Village Ekhari, Police Station Ladania, Distt. Madhubani, at present posted as Accountant of C.M.J. Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Police Station Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. 2 12. Pritam Prasad Singh, son of Ram Lakhan Singh, resident of Village Dhamakka, Police Station Lakhnaur, Distt. Madhubani, at present posted as Librarian of C.M.J. Donwari Hat, Khutauna, Police Station Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Sec. Higher Education. 2. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 4. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 5. The Finance Officer, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. ------------ Respondents ----------- 4 30.08.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the Lalit Narayan Mithila University (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the University’), this Court would find that a writ petition for twelve petitioners, having a cause of action of separate payment of their salary, in the ordinary sense of the matter, should not have been filed through a joint writ petition. Each of the petitioners holding separate appointment on separate post and claiming their salary even though they may be employed in the same college, that could have been effectively gone into by this Court if there was individual writ petition for such individual cause of action. 3 The difficulty, in fact, now arises on account of this writ petition being a joint writ petition, inasmuch as, the stand of the University is that there are two categories of employees, one for whom the fund is being released by the State Government and the other for whom the payment of salary is being made by the University from consolidated fund. In this regard, a counter affidavit, filed today by the counsel for the University, would reveal that as with regard to the existing claim of the petitioners in this writ petition, a sum of Rs.21,06,781/- was released by the University vide letter dated 3.8.2006 enclosing also the bank draft no. 52782 dated 3.8.2006. Mr. Partha Sarthy, learned counsel for the University, also informs this Court that his instruction is that the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 12 have been paid their full salary and it is only in the case of petitioner nos. 6 & 7 that he could not ascertain the latest position as with regard to their payment of salary as prayed for in 4 this writ application. He, however, has assured this Court that the payment of salary of the petitioners nos. 6 & 7 also will be made within a period of three weeks from today, if such payment for the period as claimed on their behalf in this writ application, has not already been made to them. Counsel for the petitioners, however, has taken a plea that the petitioner nos. 9, 10 & 11, being the non-teaching employees of the college, have also not been paid their full salary as claimed in this writ petition. In the writ petition, so far petitioner nos. 9, 10 & 11 are concerned, their claim for payment of salary reads as follows:- “Petitioner No.9 from July to March, 2002 amount to Rs. 1,04,666=00 (Rs. one lac four thousand six hundred and sixty) only. Petitioner No.10 from May 1995 to June 2002 amounting to Rs. 2,54,016=00 (Rs. two lac fifty four thousand & sixteen) only. Petitioner No.11 from July 96 to March 02, amounting to Rs. 1,29,243=00 (Rs. One lac twenty nine thousand two hundred and 5 fourty three) only.” From the counter affidavit filed today and the letter of the University, it would appear that as against their names, the University had already released fund for the following amount:- Petitioner No.9 Ram Awadhesh Sharma Rs. 2,48,188/- Petitioner No. 10 Shambhu Nath Singh Rs. 1,93,011/- Petitioner No. 11 Ram Khelavan Singh Rs. 1,49,128/- It thus becomes clear that an incorrect claim was made by the petitioner nos. 9, 10 & 11 in this writ petition, inasmuch as, whereas the claim of the petitioner no.9 is only for sum of Rs. 1,04,666/-, the University has released a sum of Rs. 2,48,188/- for his payment. Similarly the claim of the petitioner no.10 in the writ petition is for a sum of Rs. 2,54,016/- but his actual payable has been found to be Rs. 1,93,011/- and though the petitioner no.11 claims only Rs. 1,29,243/-, the University has found him entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,49,128/-. Such grievance, therefore, relating to quantum of salary of these three petitioner nos. 9, 10 & 11 in a joint writ 6 petition is difficult to be redressed in view of the fact that each of the petitioners, therefore, have a separate cause of action for payment of salary for different period and for such relief, they ought to have filed separate writ petition instead of making a complete chaos in this joint writ petition. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the payment of salary to the petitioners, barring petitioner nos. 6 & 7 for whom also an undertaking has been given on behalf of the Registrar of the University, has become infructuous, inasmuch as, the payment of salary as claimed in this writ petition have already been made to them. If, however, the petitioners or any one of them will have any claim for payment of salary for the period for which this writ petition was filed, they would be at liberty initially to move the Principal of the college, who having examined the accounts as also the fund sanctioned by the University, would take his own decision and if he would find anyone of them to be entitled for any further amount, he would send his 7 recommendation to the University and the University after its examination of such recommendation of the Principal, would take its own decision and communicate the same to the Principal of the college for its being conveyed to the concerned petitioner. Such an exercise, however, must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)