IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7078 of 2004
SMT.PREMLATA PRAKASH w/o Dr. Bimal Prakash, resident of
Prakash House, Baderghat, P.S. Alamganj, P.O.- Gulzarbagh, Town
and District- Patna.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Secretary, Higher
Education, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Higher Education, New Secretariat, Patna.
3.The Magadh University Bodh- Gaya through its Registrar.
4.The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University,Bodh- Gaya.
5. The Finance Officer, Magadh University,Bodh- Gaya.
6. The Principal, R.P.M. College (Rameshwar Das Panna Lal
Mahila College), Chowk Shikarpur, Patna City, District- Patna.
-----------
9 25.4.2011 The petitioner had come to this Court with a simple
grievance. According to her the amount that was due under various
heads, as found by the University itself payable to her up to 1998 was
Rs. 2,59,409/- in respect of which an amount of Rs. 57,482/-was paid.
As per University a balance amount of Rs. 2,01,927/- was the balance
payable. The matter having been recommended to the State Auditors.
They examined the matter and according to them the amount payable
was only Rs. 1,02,484/- . The claim to the extent of Rs.99,443/- was
disallowed and shown as savings in government account. As if the
Auditors were sent to save government money and not calculate
legitimate due. If one refers further to the reasons given by the Auditor
they are more astounding. There are only two grounds on which the
amount has been denied payable. First , with regard to initial pay scale
of the Reader upon implementation of the 5th Pay Revision and the
fitment of salary on completion of five years as a Reader with effect
from 1.1.1996.This Court in C.W.J.C.No,.18532 of 2009, disposed of on
-2-
5.7.2010 held that the approach of the Auditors was wrong and clarified
the whole situation, still Auditor fix his gun ignoring the judgment of
this Court, which has attained finality. Second is with regard to the shift
of date of payment from 11.12.1979 to 28.2.1982 in view of order in
CWJC No.5859 of 1996.This decision of the State to shift the date has
already been stayed by this Court long before . The auditors came to this
finding but has been ignored .
In view of the aforesaid and there being no further affidavit
from the Sate in spite of repeated orders, this Court has no option but to
direct the University to clear full payments of the petitioners by making
further payment of Rs. 99,443/- within a period of one month from
today. The State would be obliged to reimburse this amount to the
University. Once is made by the University to the petitioner. Both these
deductions, for the reasons, as noticed above, are unsustainable. I order
accordingly. Timely payment shall be the responsibility of the Registrar
of the University concerned.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
petition is disposed of.
singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)
