IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No 1589 of 2010
ANJU DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 1654 of 2010
SHALIGRAM SINGH
Versus
THE V C,TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 2064 of 2010
SHIV NANDAN PRASAD SINGH
Versus
TILKA MANJHI UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 2456 of 2010
AWANINDRA KUMAR SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 3316 of 2010
SMT ASHA DEVI
Versus
THE TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 4890 of 2010
DR (MRS) REKHA SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 4986 of 2010
DR UDAI PRAKASH SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 4991 of 2010
JAIPRAKASH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 5160 of 2010
DEO KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6327 of 2010
TARKESHWAR PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
2
CWJC No 6633 of 2010
BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7032 of 2010
DR DURGESH NANDINI VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7365 of 2010
DR ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA & ORS
Versus
THE T M BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7456 of 2010
DEO NATH CHOUDHARY & ORS
Versus
THE T M BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7704 of 2010
DR USHA PURI & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7710 of 2010
DR RAJIV RANJAN MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8028 of 2010
DR BINOD KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8076 of 2010
VISHESHWAR SINGH & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 8799 of 2010
DR MIRZA SARFRAZ HUSSAIN 'JOHN'
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9193 of 2010
MD QUAMRUL HODA
Versus
THE T M BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9339 of 2010
3
BINAY KUMAR SINGH & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9461 of 2010
DR SUBHASH CHANDRA SINGH & ANR
Versus
THE T M BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9476 of 2010
MUKESH KUMAR SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9784 of 2010
INDRAPATI PODDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9803 of 2010
DR KUMARI RENUKA & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9807 of 2010
PROF DR SITARAM SHARMA
Versus
THE T M BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 10016 of 2010
DR PREM SHANKAR PD SINGH & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 10031 of 2010
SHIV SHANKER MANDAL @ DR SHIVE
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 10094 of 2010
MD EQBAL
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 10130 of 2010
TABASSUM PERWIN & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 12526 of 2010
DR SANJAY KUMAR JHA
4
Versus
THE T M BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 9439 of 2010
DR SARBADA NAND SINGH
Versus
THE T M BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 11960 of 2010
ABINASH KUMAR THAKUR
Versus
THE T M BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 13817 of 2010
MD HAROON RASID & ORS
Versus
THE T M BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 13890 of 2010
UTTAM CHANDRA JHA
Versus
THE T M BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY &
WITH
CWJC No 14851 of 2010
DR ARVIND KUMAR & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 14910 of 2010
DR NUSRAT YUNUS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 13390 of 2010
DR KUMAR LAL BAHADUR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 14931 of 2010
SMT.INDU BALA PODDAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
4 13.09.2010 In a few cases, some sort of counter affidavits have been filed by
the University.
These cases relate to payment of dues of employees, both
5
teaching and non-teaching of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur 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 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
6
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 29 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 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
7
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
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
8
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
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)