IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6237 of 2010 1. MD.NASIR AHMED, S/O MD. ARIF, R/O VILLAGE- BHERIHARWA, P.O - CHAINPUR, P.S- RAMGARHWA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. 2. JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN YADAV, S/O LATE GENA LAL PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE + P.O - BANKATWA, P.S- JITNA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY,HIGHER EDUCATION , GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE B.R. AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY,THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR HAVING OFFICE AT MUZAFFARPUR ,MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE REGISTRAR, B.R. AMBEDKAR, BIHAR, UNIVERSITY,MUZAFFARPUR ,DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR . 4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, B.R. AMBEDKAR, BIHAR UNIVERSITY AT MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE PRINCIPAL,R.S.L.Y. COLLEGE, BETTIAH DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 6. THE PRINCIPAL,K.C.T.C. COLLEGE, RAXAUL, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. ----------- 7 2.8.2010 Petitioner no.1 is a Lecturer in fourth phase constituent R.L.S.Y.College, Bettiah and petitioner no.2 is a non teaching staff in K.C.T.C. College, Raxaul. Both are under B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. They came to this Court with a grievance that till October, 2009 they were receiving their due remuneration but suddenly thereafrter their Colleges are not paying their remuneration on the ground that they have not received money for payment of their remuneration. The University on being asked took a stand that for about 45 persons, all of a sudden with effect from November, 2009, the State Government stopped sending the money and because of that the petitioners are not being paid. University did 2 not know the reason, why the payment was stopped by the State Government. A counter affidavit has been field by the State Government today .The said affidavit is an apology in the shape of a counter affidavit. Apart from all irrelevant legal mumbo- jumbo that it contains, it does not address the controversy in any manner. It is a clear attempt again to permit confusion based upon large number of “its and buts “ with no definite stand either way which the Court understand the stand that the State has not stopped the payment of any money to the University for payment of salary to the two petitioners. The counter affidavit does not address the question of 45 similarly placed persons, which was noticed by this Court in its order dated 19.7.2010. Even while saying so, the State refers the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & others –v- Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh since reported in (2005)9 SCC 129, which dealt with in relation to teaching and non teaching employees of what is now commonly known as “Fourth Phase Constituent College”. Before the Apex Court the dispute was as to who were teaching and non teaching employees of the College when they were taken over as on the cut off date, whether they were employed on sanctioned posts or posts requested to be sanctioned or were on unauthorized unsanctioned posts. The Apex Court constituted a Committee of Justice S.C.Agrawal, a retired judge of the 3 Apex Court. The Committee, so constituted, visited each and every College and then submitted its report against which the Apex Court considered objections and ultimately passed directions. The Apex Court held that if the appointments were on sanctioned posts then all payments have to be made to them. This was what was commonly referred to as „List one‟. Appointments on post for which sanction was sought and pending before the State Government was taken to be „List two‟. In this case request from the University with its recommendation had been made for sanctioning the posts prior to cut off date and persons employed therein prior to the said date. Here University was to make enquiry about the date of ultimate sanction of posts as per University‟s request and then fixed candidates accordingly for payment of remuneration. The third list was with regard to employees, who are either on unsanctioned post or were on posts, the sanction whereof was sought from the University but the University has not taken any action thereon up to the cut off date. In respect of these, claim has to be rejected outright. Thus, so far as list one and „List three‟ are concerned, there could be no dispute and so far as list two is concerned , the only dispute was to find out whether the posts were sanctioned and if so, which of the employees named in list two would fit into those posts. Regrettably, in spite of the 4 order of the Supreme Court having been passed in the year 2004 and it concerns only a handful of employees, every one right from the Secretariat to the University to the College are enjoying sublime slip with cases after cases flooding this Court uselessly as no matter of law is at all involved which are all pure questions of fact, which in six years also stands unresolved. The employees, teaching or non teaching, are kept at tenterhook and moving like a pendulum from one place to another as if the whole thing is a big job. This is the counter affidavit. One wonders what is expected of this Court in view of the aforesaid facts . In view of the categorical stand taken by the State that they have not stopped the funds for payment of salary to the petitioners , the only direction that can be issued is that the University must forthwith pay full emoluments to the two petitioners clearing all arrears within a period of one month from today and at no point of time in future would State object in any manner to the payment or hold the University responsible for wrongful payment. So far as about 43 similarly situated employees are concerned, University will disclose their names to the State immediately and seek clarification whether in respect thereof also payments have to be cleared or not. While doing so, the University will indicate the State their status as per Agrawal Committee Report. This they would do within six weeks from 5 today and State would respond within four weeks positively. The blame- game must end with State and University sharing their responsibility as if six years are not enough to settle all disputes. This Court would take very serious view of the matter if such dispute in relation to fourth constituent colleges and implementation of Agrawal Committee Report comes before this Court again in any case for failure on the part of the University and the State in finally resting the matter. State and University would take all precipitative action in this regard immediately, as noted above. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)