IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2456 of 2002 1. ANAND MAHTO son of Dhaneshwar Mahto, resident of village- Baghmara, P. S. Singhia, District , Samastipur. 2. Satyendra Kumar Sharma, son of late Sheo Nath Sharma, resident of mohalla- Anand Nagar, P. S. Siwan, District- Siwan. 3. Subodh Kumar son of Sri Narayan Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Bharawpar, P. S. Biharsharif, District- Nalanda. 4. Chandra Bhusan Tiwari, son of Late Sriman Narayan Tiwari, resident of village- Sabalpur, P. S. Sonpur, District- Saran. 5. Smt. Bina Verma, wife of Late Shib Shankar Prasad, resident of mohalla- East of R. N. College, P. S. Hazipur, District- Vaishali. 6. Pashupati Nath Singh son of Shri Baikunth Nath Singh, resident of village- Sahpur, P. S. Sonpur, District- Saran. 7. Umesh Narayan Sinha son of late Hardeo Narayan Sinha, resident of mohalla- Mohan Nagar, P. S. chapra, District- Saran. 8. Pramod Kumar Das son of late Shobhit Narayan Das, resident of mohalla L. N. Nagar, p. s. Mithanpur, District- Muzaffarpur. 9. Balendra Prasad Sinha, son of Ambika Sinha resident of village- Chandwara, P. S. Lalganj, District Vaishali. 10. Arbind Kumar son of Shri Balswarup Singh, resident of C/53, Police Colony, P. S. Gardanibagh, Anishabad, District Patna. 11. Ram Nath Singh son of Late Jagat Singh, resident of village-Ismaipur, P. S. Bidupur, District- Vaishali. .... Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Jai Prakash University, through the Vice Chancellor Jai Prakash University, Dak Bungalow Road, Chapra. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Dak Bungalow Road, Chapra. 5. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Dak Bungalow Road, Chapra. 6. B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University through the Vice-chancellor, Muzaffarpur. 7. the Vice-Chancellor B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 8. The Registrar, B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. ... Respondents. ----------- 5. 23.08.2010 Heard Mr. Amish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, learned counsel for 2 BRA Bihar University, Mr. Ajay, learned counsel for J. P. University as also Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioners is for payment of salary for October, 1992 to February 1994 in which the payment of salary to the petitioners has been made in part to the tune of Rs.7,84,106/- but their arrear amounting to Rs.9,32,447/- has yet to be paid. As with regard to the aforementioned period of balance claim of Rs.9,32,447/- the united defence of both the Universities is that since that such amount was never released by the State Government, the Universities were not in a position to pay the same to the petitioners. There is no counter affidavit on behalf of the State which by now has become a usual phenomenon. In that view of the matter, so far the arrears of salary for the period of October 1992 to February 1994 amounting to Rs.9,32,447/- is concerned, this Court would direct the Secretary of the Higher Education Department to examine the requisition made by the Universities and if it is found that such funds have not been released to the 3 Universities for its payment to these petitioners, the same must be done forthwith and in any event within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The next part of the claim of the petitioners is for payment for salary for the period March 1994 to February 1996. As with regard to the aforementioned period again the defence of respondents is the same that though the petitioners are entitled for full payment of salary for the period March 1994 to February 1996, its payment could not be made by the University only because of non-release of fund by the State Government. Again there is no denial of this fact by the State Government by filing any counter affidavit with a plea that though the Government had released fund for payment of salary to the petitioner but its payment was not made by the University by diverting it for some other purpose. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Secretary of the Higher Education department to again look into this aspect separately and if it is found that funds for the payment of salary of the petitioners has not been released by the State Government, the same must be 4 released forthwith inasmuch as the working of the petitioner and their entitlement for payment of salary is an admitted fact by the University who is the employer of the petitioners. On the other hand, if the Secretary of Higher Education would hold that funds for payment of salary of the petitioners had already been released to the University, he would direct for its payment by the University and in that case the officials of the University will be under obligation to pay the amount of salary to the petitioners. This exercise must be completed within a period of six months because the limited issue of entitlement of salary of the petitioners vis a vis the release of fund by the Government to the University has to be enquired and decided by the Secretary of the Higher Education Department. It is, however, made clear that either on account of the fund being not released by the Government to the University or fund having released to the University by the Government and its diversion by the University will not in any way prejudice the petitioners and if it is found that for the period in question they have worked and are entitled to such payment of their salary, the same must be 5 paid to them irrespective of inter se dispute of fund between the State Government and the University, within the aforementioned period of six months. Let it be made clear that this time limit of six months has been fixed keeping in view that the grievance of the petitioners for payment of their salary has remained pending for a period ranging 14 years to 16 years and therefore if payment of salary is not made in the aforementioned period, the erring officers of the University and/or the State Government or both will be held liable for committing contempt of the present order of this Court. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)