IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.215 of 2011
PURUSHOTTAM PRAKASH SINGH
Versus
DR. ARBIND KR. & ORS
WITH
MJC No.461 of 2011
SURYA DEO PRASAD SINGH
Versus
DR. RAJ DEO SINGH & ORS.
WITH
MJC No.698 of 2011
SATISH CHANDRA PD
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.920 of 2011
MD. MOTIUR RAHMAN
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.971 of 2011
DR. AJAY KUMAR
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1027 of 2011
PROF. YUGESHWAR SINGH
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHA
WITH
MJC No.1028 of 2011
DR. SHYAM KRISHNA SINGH
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1029 of 2011
NEK LAL SINHA & ORS
Versus
DR. RAJENDRA MISHRA, VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1064 of 2011
DR. KUMAR DIGJIT SINGH
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR & ORS.
WITH
MJC No.1190 of 2011
CHANDAN PD. SINGH
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
2
WITH
MJC No.1191 of 2011
PROF. SAMIR KUMAR SINHA
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1192 of 2011
DR. SRIKRISHNA SINGH
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1214 of 2011
BIRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1302 of 2011
RAMESH KUMAR SINHA
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUAMR & ORS.
WITH
MJC No.1303 of 2011
DR. PARMANAND KUMAR
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR & ORS.
WITH
MJC No.1304 of 2011
DR. RAGHUNATH PRASAD
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR & ORS.
WITH
MJC No.1305 of 2011
DR. JHULAN PRASAD SINGH
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR & ORS.
WITH
MJC No.1306 of 2011
UMESH PRASAD
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR & ORS.
WITH
MJC No.1376 of 2011
BIMAL SINGH
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1430 of 2011
DR. RAJESHWAR SINGH
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
3
WITH
MJC No.1431 of 2011
RAZI HASAN
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1435 of 2011
MD. ASFAQUE AHMAD
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1461 of 2011
OM PRAKASH NARAYAN & ORS
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1480 of 2011
MD. SHAMIM HYDER
Versus
DR. ARBIND KUMAR ,THE VICE CHANCELLOR
WITH
MJC No.1508 of 2011
AKHILESHWAR PD. SINGH
Versus
DR. RAJ DEO SINGH VICE CHANCELLOR
-----------
02 08.04.2011 In total disregard to the so called State litigation policy
not to generate litigation Universities are generating more litigations
than bona fide graduates and these cases are example thereof. This
Court had repeatedly been holding in relation to dispute of pay scale
of Reader. Upon revision with effect from 01.01.1996, their pay
scale would be Rs.14940/- in respect of those Readers who had been
Readers five years prior thereto, for others it would, accordingly,
vary and they would receive that pay scale upon completion of five
years. Against the said judgment, which was delivered on
08.10.2010, neither the State Government nor the Universities have
preferred any appeal and the judgment has attained finality but
notwithstanding that the judgment is not being given effect to. In
4
one of these cases show cause has been filed by one of the
Universities which is clearly contemptuous on the face of it. They
have the audacity to state that notwithstanding the judgment of this
Court, as they have not received funds from the State Government,
they are unable to implement the orders of this Court.
In my opinion, firstly, once the judgment has been
passed it applies to all similarly situated persons who may or may
not be a party before this Court. Secondly, an order accepting the
judgment and allowing its implementation from the State
Government is not required. It binds the parties and the judgment
has to be complied with one and all in letter and spirit in which it is
given. Almost six months have gone by and the petitioners, who are
teachers, are yet to receive refund of wrongly deducted amount what
to talk of payment on the pay scale as found by this Court.
Let opposite parties including the State file show
causes why they be not proceeded in contempt.
Put up these matters on 25th April, 2011 at 4:15 PM.
Pendency of these applications will not come in way
of the parties in making the payment and/or refunding amounts
wrongly deducted. If on that day no show cause is filed on behalf of
the State then the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna as well as
the respective Vice Chancellors would be personally present in the
Court to answer the rule of contempt.
Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. )