Patna High Court - Orders
Shiv Shanker Mandal @ Dr.Shive vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 September, 2010
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 13.09.2010In 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)