IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2732 of 2010
UMESH JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3240 of 2010
PROF.RAZI AHMAD SHAHEEN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3440 of 2010
NIRMALA DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.4734 of 2010
SURESH PRASAD SUMAN & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
with
CWJC No.4855 of 2010
AKSHYABAT KUMAR THAKUR & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6319 of 2010
KULDIP YADAV & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7334 of 2010
GAUTAM KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7726 of 2010
BINIT KUMAR SINGH & ANR
Versus
THE V.C.,BHUPENDRA NR.MANDAL U
with
CWJC No.7816 of 2010
SHAHID NAYEEM
Versus
THE B.N.MANDAL UNIVERSITY & ORS.
-----------
3 9.8.2010 In all these mattes there are two questions involved-
2
one with regard to payment of salary of permanent teaching and
non teaching staff of various Universities of the Bihar, which is
in arrear. The reasons are not for this Court to consider. The first
liability is on the University and then upon the State. Each is
pointing a finger to other. The result is that the poor employees
are left hanging with nowhere to go but to burden this Court to
decide purely factual issue and not issue of law.
The second is with regard to fourth phase constituent
colleges. The colleges were made constituent as far back as in
1986. Twenty four years have gone by, instead of dust settling,
more and more dust is thrown up. The Supreme Court settled the
matter by accepting Agarwal Commission Report in the year
2004.We are in 2010 and the confusion still remains at
large.Agrawal Committee Report clearly envisages three types
of teaching and non teaching employees. One, who were
appointed on duly sanctioned posts before the cut off date, in
respect thereof neither the State nor the University could dispute
their liability to pay. Regrettably, they remain un-paid, for
whose fault the Court need not go into the question because the
Court is not in fault finding exercise but an exercise to ensure
payment. The second category was where the University, having
scrutinized the necessity, had already made recommendation for
sanctioning the posts to the State Government before the cut off
date and appointments were made on those posts in anticipation
of sanction. Those posts were ultimately sanctioned. The third
3
category was where the University itself sought sanction of posts
after the cut off date, for whatever reason and there were
appointments to these posts. This list was to be discarded with
no payment liability. To my understanding the only problem
would arise with the second list where as per direction of the
Supreme Court, University had to pass the orders in terms of
Section 4 (1) (14) of the Bihar Universities Act. The only order
that was required to be passed by the University is who is the
employee duly qualified occupying the said sanctioned post and
since when. Unfortunately, even though six years have gone by
, the confusion remains where it is, which only shows that
neither the State nor the University is interested in precipitating
the matter may be because the greater the confusion the greater
the benefit for certain sections. These are unconstitutional
consideration. The Court expects more from the State. State has
to take the responsibility to set its house in order and the
University is a part of the house.
These Universities were created almost 40 years
back and till today neither the State nor the University knows
anything about its staff may be teaching or non teaching. What is
more painful is as if 40 years is not enough, no effort is being
taken to end this purely factual dispute and each time the matter
is thrown to the Court to find a solution. Neither the University
accepts the responsibility nor the State accepts the responsibility.
The result is that the arrear of salary consequent to incremental
4
effect as far back as in 1986 are yet to be liquidated .
In this connection though this Court has no advisory
jurisdiction, the Court cannot stop but point out that the role of
the Chancellor is an important one . It must be remembered that
the post of Chancellor and making the Governor the
Chancellor has a purpose behind it. It was not that the legislature
wanted to confer a favour on the Governor by making him
Chancellor. This creation has a history and a purpose behind it.
The reason was that right from the time, education was taken to
be the State responsibility , it was also understood that it must be
kept away from the political control and political interference .
Education being the foundation for the next generation had a
special significance. Thus to keep University away from direct
political interference and direct political control, a buffer in the
shape of Governor, the Chancellor was introduced where
undesirable political interference would be filtered out and the
Universities could maintain their academic standard and
academic atmosphere without falling to the pressure of the
Secretariat or the politician. It is, therefore , statutorily
provided that Universities are autonomous bodies and the
Chancellor is a person who being a Governor is not subject to or
subordinate to the Government. It is on this consideration that
autonomy and the academic standard can be maintained without
political interference but all these are empty words, for the
Universities does no survive on air or water. It needs fund for
5
every activity. It has no means to raise its own fund.Thus, the
role of the State comes in . To ensure academic standard, the
State must ensure a flow of fund to the Universities and this is
where all problems start. The University considering its
autonomous status fails to act responsibly , State sleep over the
matter , start reacting only when it is too late .Officers of the
Universities and the Teachers instead of spending their time in
teaching are more busy fighting for their survival. A fight which
should never happen if the house was in order. Forty years back
Universities were created and till today accounts are absolutely
chaotic .The State has done little. The estimated liability, it is
more in the shape of guesstimate rather than estimate, of arrears
run into almost Rupees 1500 crores. The confusion and chaos
only being added every day and not a single effort is being made
to end this chaos once for all. A triangular match is being
played with blame game from University to the State, the State
to the Chancellor and the Chancellor to the University and
unfortunately ball game does not stop and the ball all along is
the employees. It is high time that the State gets together with
the University and use the high office of the Chancellor to sort
out and settle this matter once for all and not leave it to the
Courts to sort out factual matrix not involving questions of law.
I, accordingly direct the State Government to seek
audience of the Chancellor and his indulgence to sort out the
matter of salary arrears of the teaching and non teaching staff of
6
both fourth phase constituent colleges as well as other staff at an
early date. The university would also be required to be taken
into consideration and confidence, for Vice Chancellors are
appointed by the Chancellor and the scheme, as noticed above,
would make it obligatory upon the Chancellor to see that this
problem, which has grown for 40 years is brought to a terminal
end.
List these matters again on 30.8.2010 at 2 P.M.,
when learned Advocate General, Bihar, Patna would inform this
Court as to the concrete steps taken and not mere words
spoken as to working towards solution in this regard in the
manner , if possible, indicated above.
In the mean time State and the University would also
be required to file individual specific counter affidavits in the
cases and no general counter affidavit would be acceptable by
this Court.
( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
singh