IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11074 of 2003 DR. GOURI SHANKAR ROY son of late Rameshwsar Dutta Roy, Professor, Post Graduate Department of Psychology, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Chancellor, Raj Bhawan, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.The Secretary, Higher Educatio, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila, University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 6.The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 7.The Finance Officer, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. ----------- 3 16.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the University as also counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate4 writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to pay legal dues of the petitioner including salary, D.A. etc. details of which have been appended as Annexure-1 to this writ petition, which have not been paid to the petitioner despite request by the University to release the fund for the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for any other relief or reliefs to which he is found fit and entitled.” Such prayer, in fact, would become more clear if Annexure-1 containing the claim of the petitioner is also taken into account which reads as follows:- “ABSTRACT OF ARREARS OF DR. GOURI SHANKAR ROY ‘KISHORE’ Prof. and Head, P.G. Deptt. Of Psychology, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga. 1.Difference of pay from 01.01.1986 To 29.02.2000 ……. 147294.10 2 2.Difference of D.A. from 01.01. 1986 to 29.02.2000 ……. 124763.40 3.Difference of P.F. from 01.01.1986 To 29.02.2000 ……. 29231.00 4.Difference of H.R.A. from 01.01. 1986 to 29.02.2000 ……… 7328.11 5.Difference of Medical Allowance From 01.01.1986 to 29.02.2000…. 240.00 6.Principal Amount of Differed D.S. From 01.04.1981 to 31.12.1989… 19759.00 7.Interest on Derrerred D.A from 1981-82 to 2002-2003 ……. 28003.00 356618.61 (-) 12148.76 Total:- 3,44,469.85 (Rupees three lakh forty four thousand four hundred sixty nine and paise eighty five only). Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as a matter of fact Rs. 3,44,469.85 paise is an admitted dues, inasmuch as, Registrar of the University has already accepted the same and has in fact made a requisition for release of the fund, but the State has not released the fund and as such the petitioner has not been paid the aforementioned amount. Counsel for the petitioner would, therefore, pray this Court to direct the State Government to release the fund for payment of salary to the petitioner. In this case neither the State Government nor the University has filed any counter affidavit for the period of last seven years. In view of the statements made in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the writ application it is the liability of the University to make payment of the aforementioned amount as claimed by the petitioner in Annexure-1. However, response of counsel for the State in this regard is that the Government does not release the fund either in the name of the petitioner or in the name of any 3 other teacher and that the State Government has always released the fund on the overall requisition made by the University and therefore he has submitted that it cannot be presumed that there was an individual requisition only in the case of the petitioner or that the reason for non payment of such salary to him is on account of the funds not released by the State Government. Counsel for the respondents have taken all these plea on the basis of their intelligence or common sense, but then this Court cannot be governed either of them. There is no pleading of the University or the State Government either denying the liability for making such payment or the payment of admitted dues, to the petitioner on account of paucity of fund. In such a situation, this Court has to direct the Vice Chancellor of the University to look into this aspect as to whether the petitioner’s claim in Annexure-1 is correct and admitted. He then would make enquiry from the Accounts Wing of the University as to whether funds for the admitted amounts payable to the petitioner was received in the University in the corresponding period or even thereafter. In the event claim of the petitioner is admitted and funds were received by the University, he would take a firm decision for payment of the admitted dues to the petitioner as early as possible by passing a reasoned order. In the event, the Vice Chancellor would find that any claim of the petitioner is not admitted, he would reject such claim and reasons thereof would be also communicated to the petitioner 4 expeditiously. If the claim of the petitioner, however, is admitted and payment thereof has not been made due to non release of funds, the Vice Chancellor of the University by explaining each of the items and release of funds against them by the State Government will make a requisition so that the Government could be aware as to whether the difference of pay or difference of D.A. or difference of amount of provident fund or difference of H.R.A. or difference of medical allowance were actually at any point of time were released and in fact has been diverted and / or misutilized by the University on any other head. In any event all these exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the petitioner also must be intimated in writing as with regard to the amount admissible and payable to him with the consequential payment as well and the amount to which he was not entitled with the reasons thereof. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)