Md.Aftab Ashraf vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 September, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Md.Aftab Ashraf vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 September, 2010
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)
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *