Order This writ petition, filed by two teachers Association and a number of individual teachers of the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') once again brings to this Court the teachers' grievances regarding irregular payment of their salary and nonpayment of various allowances and benefits lawfully admissible to the University teachers. It is further stated that the provident fund deductions made from their salary and some portions of the Dearness Allowance required to be deposited in their respective Provident Fund Accounts were not being deposited by the University. This Court is also told yet again, that teachers after their superannuation from service were not paid their retrial benefits for months and in many cases for years. 2. Before proceeding to state the respective stands taken by the University and the State Government, I feel tempted to observe that this case too like many similar cases earlier, unfolds itself following the pattern which by now is all too familiar to this Court; the petitioners having brought their grievances to this court are practically sidelined and the real controversy that emerges is between the University and the State Government. 3. The University does not deny the allegations made in the writ petition nor does it dispute the petitioners' claim that the teachers were entitled to the various allowances and benefits as mentioned in the writ petition. It simply pleads its inability to meet the petitioners' grievances on the ground that it was not provided sufficient funds by the State Government. 4. The State Government, as it usually does in such cases, considered it best to take an evasive and half hearted stand; it has put in a vague affidavit which at best tries to gloss over the real issues in the controversy. It is stated on its behalf that the petitioners are employees of the University and the responsibility for the payment of their salary and allowances lay with the University; it is thus suggested that the State Government was being needlessly dragged into this case. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State then goes on to mention some large sums of money made available by the State Government as grants to the University for making payments under different heads to its employees. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State then goes on to mention some large sums of money made available by the State Government as grants to the University for making payments under different heads to its employees. The amounts stated in the counter affidavit are sufficiently large to appear impressive if viewed in the abstract but so far as the grievances of the University and its employees are concerned, those figures mean nothing because the State Government has not cared to disclose as to what is the amount even according to its own case, realistically needed by the University to meet its lawful commitments. 5. It is important to note here the statement made in the University's counter affidavit that it was more than ten years ago in 1985-86 that for the last time the State Government had approved the annual budget of the University and had released funds as provided in the budget. Thereafter, no annual budget was passed and only ad hoc grants were made by the State Government for payment of salary to the University employees. 6. At this stage, it may be noted that sections 45 to 54 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 contain provisions relating to the finance, accounts and the audit of the University. Section 45 provides for the establishment of the University Fund; Section 46 casts an obligation upon the State Government to contribute annually to the University Fund a recurring grant out of the consolidated fund of the State which would include all expenses of recurring nature; Section 47 provides for the preparation of the annual estimates of income and expenditure of the colleges and University; Section 48 provides for the approval of the budget by the State Government and is as follows : "48. Approval of the Budget by the State Government. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Statutes, University Ordinance or Regulation made thereunder, every University shall send its budget for every financial year to the State Government. The University shall show therein estimates of receipts and disbursement for the ensuing year. The State Government shall return the budget to the University with such modification as it may deem fit and the University shall act in conformity with such a modified and approved budget. The University shall show therein estimates of receipts and disbursement for the ensuing year. The State Government shall return the budget to the University with such modification as it may deem fit and the University shall act in conformity with such a modified and approved budget. (2) At any time during the financial year the University may send a supplementary budget to the State Government and the State Government shall return the budget to the University with such modifications and approval as it may deem proper. (3) No expenditure shall be incurred by any University unless such an expenditure has become a part of the budget as finally approved under sub-section (1) or (2)." 7. The State Government by a resolution bearing no. 757 dated March 31, 1986 took the decision that the annual budget of a University before it was passed by the Syndicate and was laid before the Senate should be presented for appraisal before a three member Committee consisting of the Secretary, Finance Department, the Secretary, Education Department and the Vice Chancellor of the concerned University. 8. It remains the admitted position that the legislative mandate regarding the preparation and approval of the annual budget has been persistently violated by the University and the State Government for the past more than ten years. And to my mind whal lies at the root of the present state of affairs is the action of the State Government and the University in not preparing/approving annual budget for more than a decade in utter disregard of the provisions contained in the Act. 9. I may pause here to point out that it is not B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University alone which suffers from such financial ad hocism but the same kind of situation prevails in all the Universities in the State. In fact in some of the Universities the condition is far worse. In some Universities the payment of monthly salary to the employees, both teaching and non-teaching, remains in arrear for several months. In some other Universities e.g. L.N. Mithila University, the employees are paid only a certain percentage of their salary with no idea as to how and when the outstanding balance of their salary would be paid to them. In some Universities the payment of monthly salary to the employees, both teaching and non-teaching, remains in arrear for several months. In some other Universities e.g. L.N. Mithila University, the employees are paid only a certain percentage of their salary with no idea as to how and when the outstanding balance of their salary would be paid to them. In none of the Universities in this State the annual budget has been prepared and approved by the State Government for the last several years and the Universities are being run on the basis of ad hoc grants made by the State Government from time to time. It can be observed without any fear of contradiction that at any given time there remain pending in this Court more than a score of writ petitions and contempt petitions agitating similar grievances against different Universities in the State. A few such cases coming from different Universities which were listed before me from time to time have been tagged along with this case on my direction C.W.J.C. Nos. 9234, 7090, 7732 of 1996 and C.W.J.C. Nos. 10687 and 4060 of 1995 came from Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University and C.W.J.C. Nos. 506 and 1805 of 1997 came from Magadh University. 10. The thoroughly disorganised financial affairs in the Universities in this State are no longer a secret and to record a finding that the financial administration in the Universities in this State has all but broken down and is being carried on in a manner contrary to the statutory provisions only amounts to making a pronouncement on some fact which is already widely known. 11. Before, proceeding further with this matter, I would like to observe that it now appears in retrospect that this Court's perception of the financial malady besetting the Universities in this State and at Its possible remedial measures has developed from stage to stage. Initially when such matters started coming to this court, those case were tended to be viewed as instances of violation of individual rights and were accordingly disposed of with appropriate directions concerning the individual petitioners who had approached the Court with their grievance. That was the first stage of this Court's awareness of the financial affairs in these Universities. 12. Initially when such matters started coming to this court, those case were tended to be viewed as instances of violation of individual rights and were accordingly disposed of with appropriate directions concerning the individual petitioners who had approached the Court with their grievance. That was the first stage of this Court's awareness of the financial affairs in these Universities. 12. The intervention by this Court in individual cases encouraged the filing of more such cases and this led this Court to go deeper in the matter and to try to find out what lay at the root of financial ad hocism and irregularities in the Universities. In Patna University Teachers' Association vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) P.L.J.R. 197 (coming from Patna University) a bench of this Court of which I happened to be a member noted with pain and surprise that no annual budget for the Patna University was prepared for the past several years. This took the court to the second stage in its perception of the problem and accordingly while disposing of that case, this court made the following observations and directions : "Coming now to the question of the annual budget of the University, we find that no annual budget has been prepared for the past several years. We feel shocked and distressed at the complete disregard shown by the State Government and the University to the legislative mandates. The omission to finalise the annual budget is not only a violation of section 49 of the Patna University Act but appears to us to be at the root of most of the financial irregularities which has over the years led to the present sorry state of affairs. We put on record our grave anxiety in this regard and direct the University and the State Government that the annual budget for the year, 1995-96 must be finalised in time and in accordance with law. The Addl. A.G. No. II, the Finance Commissioner and the Secretary, Higher Education assure this Court that they will take all steps towards the finalisation of the budget proposal for the year 1995-96. Unfortunately, however, it appears that there is a default on the part of the University in this' regard and the budget is yet to be submitted to the State Government. Unfortunately, however, it appears that there is a default on the part of the University in this' regard and the budget is yet to be submitted to the State Government. We, accordingly, direct the University to submit the budget for 1995-96 without any delay and as far as possible before December 31, 1994, whereupon as stated by the State officials, it will receive due consideration and examination by them and shall be finalised in accordance with law." 13. The judgment in the case of Patna University Teachers' Association was pronounced on 12.12.1994 but I am informed that even after 1-1/2 years, the payment of salary to the employees of Patna University is not being made on a regular basis and the Patna University teachers have no assurance of getting their salary in time. Further, despite the directions of this Court and the undertakings given to the Court both by the University and the State Government, I am informed that no budget for the year 1995-96 (for the Patna University) could be prepared. An ad hoc budget of Rs. 2.20 crore was prepared for 1996-97. 14. The failure of University authorities and the State Government to carry out the directions given in that judgment led to the filing of a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 104/96 which was made one of a batch of similar contempt petitions and was heard along with M.J.C. No. 1466/96 and some other contempt cases. (It may be made clear here that in that batch of contempt petitions, no case arises from the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University). Hearing that batch of contempt petitions, a bench of this Court on 6.8.1996 passed an interim order in which it observed that though there were several aspects of the controversy, the root cause was the failure to pass the budgets of the different Universities by the State Government under the provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act and the Patna University Act respectively. That order then considered certain issues which had a direct bearing on the preparation of the annual budget and which at the same time were the source of conflict between the University authorities and the State Government. That order then considered certain issues which had a direct bearing on the preparation of the annual budget and which at the same time were the source of conflict between the University authorities and the State Government. These issues included (i) the disparity between the number of sanctioned post and the number of actual hands working in the University, (ii) fixation of pay of the University employees in the different scales and (iii) the promotions given to a number of teaching staff of the University. Having considered those issues certain guidelines were given for the preparation of the budget. That order then laid down a programme according to which the representative of the University and the State Government were required to meet and exchange views. The State Government was also asked to fix a time schedule for the finalisation of the budget and to intimate the same to all the Universities along with a copy of that order within a week from the date of the order. Having thus fixed the manner in which and the time frame within which the budget was to be prepared that order went on to observe that if any attempt was made by any of the University or the Government Department to circumvent that order, the Vice Chancellor of the concerned University and the Secretary of the Higher Education Department would be personally held responsible for the same. 15. It was in this back ground that when this case and the other cases of this batch were taken up the first question that came to mind was about the preparation of the annual budget. The State counsel was unable to inform the Court regarding any progress made toward finalisation of the budget of this University. The counsel for the University squarely blamed the State Government for the failure to finalise the budget and stated that the annual budget for 1996-97 was duly submitted by the University to the State Government which was sitting over the matter and there was no response from the Government. This led to further trading of allegations between the University and the State Government. 16. This led to further trading of allegations between the University and the State Government. 16. An idea of the differences between the University and the State Government on the question of finalisation of the budget can be had from the fact that in its annual budget for the year, 1996-97, some of the claims made by University are as follows: (i) The statement of amounts deducted from the salary but not deposited in the respective account-Rs. 16,57,31,113/- (ii) Total arrears dues on account of salary, D.A. and other allowance - Rs. 27,33,88,980/- 17. As regards the claim of the petitioners, the University in its counter affidavit has given the details of the amounts which would be needed to settle the claims in respect of various allowances, other benefits and the retrial benefits of the superannuated teachers. 18. As against this the State Government in its counter affidavit has simply stated that it had released a sum of Rs. 20,00,85,570/- for payment of arrears in respect of salary and allowances for the period from 1.1.1986 to 31.7.1989. It is also stated that in the current financial year 1997-98, a budget provision of Rs. 29,49,45,000/- was made for giving grants to the Bihar University for various purposes of payment of salary etc. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government there is no statement regarding finalisation of the' budget of the University for the year 1996-97 or 1997-98. 19. The position that emerges thus is that despite earlier directions by this court, couched in peremptory terms, no annual budget has been prepared and passed for any University in this State. 20. Having perused the writ petition and the affidavits field on behalf of the University and the State Government and having heard counsel for the parties, I feel convinced that the financial irregularities in the Universities have become so deeply rooted and there appears to be so much differences between the University authorities and the State Government that they seem to be unable to prepare and finalise a realistic and mutually acceptable budget for the Universities. I am further convinced, and this perhaps is the third stage in the Court's perception of the problem that where the University and the State Government have been unable to prepare and pass a budget between themselves they may perhaps be able to do so with the intervention of a third agency and I feel satisfied that in order to prevent further deterioration of the situation, it is now imperative for this court to make a more active intervention in this matter. 21. I accordingly propose to constitute a committee and to refer to it the matter of preparation of tile annual budget of B.A. Ambedkar Bihar University. In the interest of higher education in this State Mr. Justice Sarwar Ali formerly Acting Chief Justice of this Court and the Lokayukta of this State has kindly given his consent to undertake such an exercise on honorary basis. I accordingly appoint a Committee with Mr. Justice S. Sarwar Ali as its sole member to aid and assist this Court in this matter and in this regard pass the following orders : (i) The matter of preparation of annual budget for the year 1998-99 for the B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University is referred to a one man Committee consisting of Mr. Justice S. Sarwar Ali who is requested to prepare a budget in consultation with the University authorities and the State Government and to recommend it to this Court. (ii) The Committee will go into all financial questions as also all matters appearing to be connected with or relevant to the preparation of the budget. On issues involving rights of individual employees, the Committee would device modes and principles so as to prepare the budget without conclusively deciding the rights of individuals in a manner prejudicial to them. (iii) The Committee will also examine the questions regarding (i) payment of retrial dues to the superannuated employees, (ii) the failure of the University to deposit the Provident Fund amounts and the portions of dearness allowance in the respective accounts of the employees, and (iii) payment of arrears of salary/allowances/benefits lawfully payable to the University employees and will recommend to this court suitable measures/schemes for the settlement of the outstanding dues under those heads. (iv) Two officers of the rank of Joint Secretary, one each from the Education Department and the Finance Department, Government of Bihar will act as liason between the Government and the Committee; an officer of the rank of Registrar of the University will similarly act as liason between the Committee and the University. They would appear before the committee as and when required by Mr. Justice S. Sarwar Ali, and would render full assistance to him. (v) Both the State Government and the University would produce before the Committee all the materials required by it and would also put forward their respective points of view regarding preparation of the annual budget. (vi) It will be open to the associations of the teaching and the non-teaching staff of the University to appear and present their case before tile Committee which, if it so considers, would take into consideration their points of view and give them opportunity of hearing. (vii) Mr. Justice S. Sarwar Ali will be provided with a Personal Assistant knowing short hand and typing, a Clerk and a Peon by the State Government and the aforesaid staff will be put at his disposal within a week from today. (viii) The University will immediately make available a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to meet any expenses incurred by the Committee. The money made available by the University will remain in deposit with University official deputed to liason between the Committee and the University in terms of the direction contained in clause (iv) hereinabove. On any requisition made by the Committee the payment will be made by the University official holding the money within ten days from the date of requisition. (ix) The Committee will hold its sittings in the Court room of the Commissioner, Patna Division and it is expected that the Commissioner will extend all necessary help and facilities to the Committee in this regard. (x) The Secretary, Education Department, Government at Bihar and the Registrar, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University will contact Mr. Justice S. Sarwar Ali by August 4, 1997 and will get instructions from him as to how and when the Committee proposes to commence the work. They will render full assistance without the loss of a single day. (x) The Secretary, Education Department, Government at Bihar and the Registrar, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University will contact Mr. Justice S. Sarwar Ali by August 4, 1997 and will get instructions from him as to how and when the Committee proposes to commence the work. They will render full assistance without the loss of a single day. (xi) Any report of any lack of co-operation will be deemed as deliberate disobedience of this Court's order and would make the Secretary, Education Department, the Secretary Finance Department and the Vice Chancellor at the University, as the case may be, personally liable to face the consequences. (xii) The Committee is requested to complete the preparation of the budget as expeditiously as possible and it would be highly appreciated if it could submit its report to the Court within two months from today. (xiii) The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order along with photo-stat copies of the writ petition and the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the university and the State in C.W.J.C. No. 5859 of 1996 so as to reach Mr. Justice S. Sarwar Ali at his residence by August 1, 1997. 22. Put up this case under the heading 'to be mentioned' on August 8, 1997 to report compliance of the directions given hereinabove and to inform this court that the Committee has commenced its work. 23. Let three copies of this order be given to the Advocate General for onward communication one copy each should similarly be given to Mr. P.N. Roy, counsel for the University and Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, counsel for the petitioners.