IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No 7418 of 2010
DR MAMTA RANI THAKUR & ORS
Versus
THE L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 10501 of 2010
PROF DR KRISHNA CHANDRA MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7484 of 2010
DINESH CHAUDHARY & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7868 of 2010
MD AFTAB ASHRAF
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7909 of 2010
TARNI PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7911 of 2010
DR RAMAWATAR PRASAD
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7938 of 2010
DR NIRMALA JHA
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7949 of 2010
(DR) MADHAV CHOUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7963 of 2010
UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7970 of 2010
DR KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
2
CWJC No 8090 of 2010
DR MAHESH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8108 of 2010
UDAY NARAIN SINGH
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8157 of 2010
DR (MRS)MANSA KUMARI SULTANIA
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8201 of 2010
MALTI JHA & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8294 of 2010
KRISHNA KUMAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8445 of 2010
MAHENDRA KUMAR MAHTO
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8524 of 2010
RADHA GOVIND JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8577 of 2010
DR BRAJENDRA KUMAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8671 of 2010
DR SYED SAJJAD HAIDER
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8689 of 2010
BALNATH JHA & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8776 of 2010
3
PROF BESH LAL PASWAN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8782 of 2010
DR RAM KRISHNA JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8783 of 2010
DR DAMAN KUMAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8814 of 2010
PROF DR MANINDRA KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8833 of 2010
SHIKSHAKETTAR KARAMCHARI SANGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8867 of 2010
PROF UMESH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8872 of 2010
LAKSHMI KANT MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8873 of 2010
PROF CHANDRA SEKHAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8877 of 2010
PROF HARE KRISHNA JHA 'HARI'
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8914 of 2010
DR RAM SAGAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8920 of 2010
DR SHIVESH CHANDRA JHA
4
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8933 of 2010
PROF RAMA KANT MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8989 of 2010
KUNDAN KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8992 of 2010
DR AVESH CHANDRA JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9039 of 2010
PROF BIRENDRA KR SRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9046 of 2010
JIBENDRA DUTTA JHA
Versus
L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9061 of 2010
DR VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9064 of 2010
DR VIJAY CHANDRA JHA
Versus
THE LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9117 of 2010
AMARNATH JHA
Versus
L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9123 of 2010
DR KRISHNAKANT JHA
Versus
L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9135 of 2010
DR MAHESH JHA
Versus
5
LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSI
WITH
CWJC No 9140 of 2010
DR VIDYANAND JHA
Versus
L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9152 of 2010
DR PRABODH JHA
Versus
L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9155 of 2010
DR SATYANAND THAKUR
Versus
L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9165 of 2010
DR ASHARFI KAMATI
Versus
L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9211 of 2010
DHANESHWAR THAKUR
Versus
L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9288 of 2010
SURENDRA SETH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9453 of 2010
SHASHI BHUSHAN MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9485 of 2010
DR BIBEKA NAND JHA
Versus
THE L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No.11070 of 2010
DR MD QUTUBUDDIN ALAM
Versus
THE V C OF L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 12623 of 2010
LAV KUSH SHARMA & ORS
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
6
WITH
CWJC No 12827 of 2010
HIRA LAL GUPTA
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 12846 of 2010
PRATAP NARAYAN ROY
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 12871 of 2010
KEWAL KRISHAN LAL DAS
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 12880 of 2010
PURNA CHANDRA LAL DAS
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
-----------
4 13.09.2010 In a few cases, some sorts of counter affidavits have been filed by
the University.
These cases relate to payment of dues of employees, both
teaching and non-teaching of L N Mithila University. It is not in dispute
that even on a conservative estimate, the total outstanding liability of this
University towards payment to its working and retired employees would
far exceed Rupees 100 crores. The University is getting not even
quarterly of this amount on quarterly basis for disbursement. This is
giving rise to many fold problems. Firstly, the question still remains in
most of the cases as to what is the exact liability. On one hand, there is
claim by the employee or the retired employee. On the other hand, there
is an admitted liability as per University’s auditor and lastly, there is a
third angle to it being the liability as quantified by the State Auditor,
which, in some cases, is still pending final calculation. It is expected of
7
the University to give details as per its calculation and as per Government
Auditor’s calculation in comparison to the claim of the employees to the
employees. This is so that they are in a position to point out areas of
dispute, if any. Unfortunately, apparently this information holds a
premium. To this Court, it is a matter of right of an employee whether
serving or retired to receive this information. This is a matter of
accounting. Therefore, at this stage, the first direction this Court would
give is that the University should furnish to all its employees whether
working or retired who have raised any claim either at the University or
before this High Court detail of accounts as admitted per the University
Auditor and the Government Auditor. Wherever Government audit is
still pending, the said employee or the ex employee must be given the
calculation as per University’s Auditor clearly stating that Government
audit is still pending. This should be completed in all such cases without
discrimination or favour or disfavour by the 12th of October, 2010 failing
which on the 25th of October 2010, the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar, the
Finance Officer shall be personally present in the Court to answer rule of
contempt.
After this or rather alongwith this is the problem of utilization of
about Rupees 16.75 crores which the University has received on the 16th
of August, 2010 for payment of these arrears. To this Court, there appears
to be a lack of will on part of the University to adopt any particular
manner of utilizing this. The utilization appears to be totally ad hoc and
at the discretion of the University. This must end. This Court cannot
assume the role of Administrator but still as hundreds of writ applications
8
are pending here, this Court can only suggest means to end the litigation
at an early date.
Firstly, it would be seen that there are two categories of
claimants. First, the working employees, both teaching and non-teaching
and the second retired employees, both teaching and non-teaching. In my
view, as working employees are getting some payments on monthly basis,
precedence has to be given to retired employees. Therefore, at the first
instance, I would direct that in all those cases of retired employees
(whether before this Court or not) to the extent claims are admitted by the
Government Auditors, full payment must be made immediately within
one week from today. Alongwith the payment, full calculation chart in
support of the payment would have to be given to the retired employee.
At the second stage would be payment that would be made as per
University’s Auditor to such retired employees upon undertaking on
affidavit authorizing University to recover the amount of difference, if
Government Auditor reduces the liability. These are cases where
Government audit is pending. Alongwith this, I issue direction to the
Government Auditor to complete audits and I direct Government to give
adequate staff for this purpose so that the audit is completed by 12th of
September, 2010. It is expected in this way the number of dissatisfied
employees would come down drastically.
The third stage would be payment of dues to all existing
employees to the extent approved by the Government Auditor whether
these employees are before the Court or not. If after these three stages,
any money is left then would come the stage for payment of those existing
9
employees whose Government Audit is pending but payment would be
made according to University Auditor with undertaking from the
employees to refund the amount in case the Government Auditor finds it
otherwise.
From the above, it would be seen that there are two categories in
retired employees and there are two categories in existing employees. In
all cases, effort has to be first made to pay off while maintaining the
seriatim as above dues of those employees which are least in amount. In
my view, if this seriatim and this number is kept in mind and strictly,
without discrimination, followed then the number of dissatisfied persons
or number of litigations would drastically fall giving time to the
University to deal with fewer people.
This Court has advisedly put a short strict time schedule. This is
so because if latitude is given to the University or the State, this work
would go on indefinitely. It has already existed and prolonged for 20
good years, if not more. The reason for this prolongation is not far to
search. The longer the delay, the greater the premium. The greater the
harassment, the greater the premium again. This wishes cycle has to be
broken. I am sure that neither the State Government nor the University is
unaware that a scientific instrument known as computer axis which can be
more effectively utilized than human personnels. I wonder why no one,
either at the Secretariat level or at the University level, ever thought of
this as a vehicle for solving a problem rather than rely on something that
creates a problem.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the office of the Chancellor
10
with a request from this Court to get the matter monitored so that the
longstanding grievances of decades are solved and the Court is
unburdened of useless litigation not involving issues of law but only
involving matter of pure accountancy.
Put up these cases on 25th of October, 2010.
M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)
