IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13526 of 2002 1.Dr.Raageeva Bimal, son of Shri Bimaldeo Sinha, Professor, Department of Botany, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 2.Dr.Sheojee Singh, son of Shri Ambika Singh, Professor, Department of Commerce, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 3.Dr.Bhoj Nandan Prasad Singh, son of Late Kheyali Singh, Professor, Department of History, L.S.College, Muzaffarpur 4.Dr,Mamta Rani, D/O shri Jagannath Singh, Lecturer, Department of English, M.D.D.M. College, Muzaffarpur 5.Dr.Binita Verma, wife of Shashishekhar Sinha, Lecturer, Department of English, M.D.D.M. College, Muzaffarpur 6.Dr.Nalin Bilochan, son of Shri Ishwar Chandra Sinha, Lecturer, Department of History, M.S.College, Motihari. 7.Dr.Jaikant Singh, son of Shri Shiv Shankar Singh, Lecturer, Department of Bhojpuri, L.S.College, Muzaffarpur 8.Dr.Sanjay Kumar son of Shri Sheo Shankar, Lecturer, Department of Math, R.D.S.College, Muzaffarpur 9.Dr.Chandrashekhar Rai, son of Shri Shyam Bihari Rai, Lecturer, Department of Physics, R.D.S.College, Muzaffarpur. .. Petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna 4.The Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 5.Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar 6.The Vice-Chancellor, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 7.The Finance Officer, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur …… Respondents ----------- 3. 12/08/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This writ application was filed by nine petitioners originally for a direction to the respondent Commissioner to grant revised U.G.C. - 2 - Scale to the petitioners in terms of Government letter No.1300 dated 20.7.2001 and subsequent letters. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of this writ application, U.G.C. Scale has been granted to the petitioners and now their grievance is confined to the arrears thereof. He submits that in the circumstances, petitioners will file representation before the authorities of the University for the purpose. In spite of passage of more than seven years, no counter affidavit has been filed either by the State or by the University denying the claim of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with the following directions:- 1. Petitioners must file a representation before the concerned respondents within one month from today along with a copy of this order. The representation must contain all the claims of the petitioner distinctly and in separate paragraphs and must accompany documents connected with their service history and other documents/circulars/orders etc. on the basis of - 3 - which petitioners assert their right to get the claims. 2. The concerned respondent, upon receipt of the representation, with a copy of this order, shall immediately take it into consideration, and, if necessary, after hearing the petitioner in person or through representative, as he may feel proper, shall pass final orders within three months of the receipt of the same. In case the concerned respondent is not the competent authority to pass final orders in the matter, he shall refer the matter within two months with his detailed consideration and definite opinion in respect of each claim to the competent authority for passing final orders in the matter, who, after hearing anyone and after examining any records as he may deem necessary, shall pass final orders in the matter within one month from the date of receipt of reference from the concerned respondent. 3. The final order of the concerned respondent or of competent authority or the reference order of the concerned respondent sent to the competent authority must show that (i) each and every claim of the petitioners has been - 4 - noticed; (ii) each and every claim has been separately considered and a definite finding/opinion has been arrived at in respect of each and every claim with regard to its admissibility or inadmissibility and (iii) all the relevant laws/circulars/orders etc. in respect of each and every claim have been taken into consideration for its acceptance or rejection by the said final order. 4. After calculating the arrears of the petitioners and the amount which became due to them, if the University feels that due to paucity of fund it cannot release the amount to the petitioners, it shall make specific requisition for the amount in respect of particular dues of the petitioners from the State Government within the same period and upon receipt of such requisition, the State Government authorities of the Department of Higher Education shall scrutinize the same and shall release the amount which is found admissible as arrears to the petitioners within one month thereafter. 5. The said final order must be served upon/communicated to the petitioner within the said three months and it must clearly mention - 5 - the grounds and findings for rejecting any claim with reference to specific law/circular/order for coming to that finding. It goes without saying that this Court has not gone into the claim of the petitioners on merits which shall be considered and decided by the respondents within the time fixed as above and strictly in accordance with law. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)