Judgment 1. The amount, which was to be deposited in trust to take care of the retiral dues of the employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation, has not been deposited within the stipulated period. The issues raised in this petition are not fresh or of this year. The petition has been pending since 1998. Whether arrears of pay or retiral benefits, as time passes by for those who were seeking arrears of pay and retirement now are seeking arrears of pay and retirement benefits both. As time passes by the situation is getting more complicated and perhaps out of hand. At one stage a hope and commitment was given to the employees i.e. the sanction has been sought from the State government to take care of the arrears and it would be paid. Then the High Court was told that unless rules are framed, which will be simultaneous sanction also, the amount will follow. Whether sanction or whether acknowledgement of the rules by the State government, in so far as the employees are concerned, they continued to languish still waiting in hope that their arrears and now retiral benefits may yet be paid. It looks as if a hope is turning into a despair. 2. The High Court has no answer for these employees in the face of unwillingness of the erstwhile managers of the superseded Patna Municipal Corporation who sat as Administrators and did not pay arrears of salary and retiral benefits. The Administrators ran this Corporation answerable to no one but the State government. Can the State government wriggle out of its responsibility. When the superseded self government institution was its eminent domain, so it is claimed, the administrators claim immunity from answerability. While the Patna Municipal Corporation under Administrators provided one more deputation post for the bureaucracys benefit and luxuries not excluded, such administrators and so called Chief Executive Officers took their pay and facilities and perks but the lowest level employees who worked under such officers went without pay and pensions. 3. There are many questions which now have to be answered. The civil servants who sat on these municipal corporations without elected representatives got their salaries from where? Who paid the running expenses of their cars? The staff allotted to them as their personal attachment? Did this staff get pay or went without it? Who paid for their furnished accommodations and house rent allowance? The civil servants who sat on these municipal corporations without elected representatives got their salaries from where? Who paid the running expenses of their cars? The staff allotted to them as their personal attachment? Did this staff get pay or went without it? Who paid for their furnished accommodations and house rent allowance? Who paid for the maintenance of their offices. Their travel? 4. The workforce of an organization marches on its stomach. If the bureaucrats and civil servants are their managers then they have no moral right to draw their salary, perks and allowances until every man who works under them receives his salary and retirement benefits, just as these accrue to the bureaucrats themselves. The only difference is that the bureaucrat who conveniently shrugs off responsibility on payment of arrears of salary and retirement dues is a Class I officer and the lowest man in the organization is a Class IV employee. 5. Slowly, facts are emerging that in the whole of Bihar organization after organization, that is to say public bodies, supported by public funds, and departments, the lowest rung employee cries for arrears of pay and post-retirement benefits not paid. This is shameful, and now these affected employees demonstrate in the national capital. Their grievances are being felt at the High Court, for their complaints are being lodged like monsoon rain. Not paying arrears and retirement benefits to servants of public bodies, on public funds, and departments of the government is a disease. One case may be an exception, where it may be explained away that an employee is under enquiry for misconduct or obtaining employment by fraud. The first cause is personal to the employee, in the second, it takes two people to play that game. 6. The amount which the court had directed to be deposited by the order of 21 July 2003 has not been deposited by either of the two who were to comply with the order-2.5 Crore rupees was to be deposited by the Patna Corporation, 2.5 Crore rupees by the State of Bihar, a total amount of Rs. 5 crores. One months time had been given but the order has not been complied with. The arrears now swell, both arrears of pay and the increasing number of employees who retire without their dues. Yet more may have to be deposited now. 7. 5 crores. One months time had been given but the order has not been complied with. The arrears now swell, both arrears of pay and the increasing number of employees who retire without their dues. Yet more may have to be deposited now. 7. The Chief Executive Officer of the Patna Municipal Corporation and the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar were to present a scheme identifying the employees entitled to receive arrears, retirement benefits and pensions, as on 31 March, 2003. This has not been done either. 8. The last Chief Secretary did not seem concerned. As his retirement was to give him Moksha he ran away from the problem. If Patna Municipal Corporation was under administrators until the last election in 2002, then clearly this was a matter for the department or ministry or the Commissioner, Urban Department, also. An ingenious method was adopted to stall the problem, create confusion and confuse the public. A feuding Chief Executive Officer was challenging the Secretary to the Government. Instead of discussing the matter for a solution with the elected representafives, he took the decision himself that in the case of the unpaid employees, whether seeking arrears of salary or pensions, the exercise will be one of avoidance. He did this deliberately with a case pending. He was attempting a trial, on his version, outside a pending trial in court. He went to the Press to say that a colossal amount is due to the Patna Municipal Corporation from Government Departments and public bodies and therefore the Patna Municipal Corporation has no money. He was playing politics, and he forgot that he was a Chief Executive Officer, a bureaucrat and was to explain actions when the corporation was superseded. For a long time to come the State of Bihar will have to answer the liabilities of the superseded local self governments. Patna Municipal Corporation is only one of them. To the Press this Chief Executive Officer gave a statement of the rateable taxes which were due. He mentioned the High Court also. A vigilant Registrar General, High Court, immediately checked with the Press and received an answer from the paper which published the news that what was published was a statement given by the Chief Executive Officer, and that the paper would gladly publish the inaccuracy, the correction and the correct perspective. He mentioned the High Court also. A vigilant Registrar General, High Court, immediately checked with the Press and received an answer from the paper which published the news that what was published was a statement given by the Chief Executive Officer, and that the paper would gladly publish the inaccuracy, the correction and the correct perspective. The Registrar General could not do what the Chief Executive Officer did-go to the press. 9. What was the correct perspective? No bill was due. The Registrar General recorded on the last bill which was submitted, payment had been received by bank draft by an official of the Patna Municipal Corporation by coming to the High Court itself. Ho did not give a stamped revenue receipt, but put an endorsement on the file of the High Court (File No VI-3-1995 of Accounts Establishment Department) of having received Bank Drafts carrying number 621603 for Rupees 3,25,574.56 (Rs. 2,79,318.48 + Rs. 46,256.08) on 1 October, 2002 respectively. Why was a receipt not given? Because if a revenue receipt is given, the amount will be posted on ledgers as a credit against the name of the rate payer. This is revenue for the Patna Municipal Corporation. All such payments must be posted and the expenditure of the Patna Municipal Corporation must be a debit. Thus the record shows that no payment was due. How did the Press carry the statement of arrears? Registrar General was told that what was published was whatever information was fed to it. For the press it makes news. 10. No bill was sent to the Registrar General, but a letter was sent in March, 2003, during the last week of the closing of the financial year, that old, paid bills had been revised with effect from 1996. The Patna Municipal Corporation had received a reply that no assessment or bill has been rent. In effect, the Registrar General extains in his note that the Chief Executive Officer and his establishment was questioned, to unsettle settled matters and to exercise a retrospective power. Truly, on record, on the last bill submitted, payment had been received, the retrospective revision was done for mischief, to manufacture a plea in defence, in cheap politics, and then before the High Court, that there are dues due to the Corporation. 11. Truly, on record, on the last bill submitted, payment had been received, the retrospective revision was done for mischief, to manufacture a plea in defence, in cheap politics, and then before the High Court, that there are dues due to the Corporation. 11. If this is the modality by which dues have been worked out for other assesses also, upon the use of a retrospective power, then there is a hornets nest to be enquired into within the Patna Municipal Corporation. The High Court paid its last bill and the payment is up to date, on a mere letter, but an ordinary assessee who is a rate payer can question the Patna Municipal Corporation and demand an assessment, which is a specific procedural exercise, and a bill based on an assessment. 12. The record of the High Court was brought by the Registrar General to the Court and placed before the counsel who is supposed to argue on behalf of Patna Municipal Corporation, whoever may instruct him. The record was also placed before the Additional Advocate General II, Mr. S.K.Ghosh, Senior Advocate. Counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation fumbled, and took instructions from the counsel instructing him. The Chief Executive Officer who instructed him conveniently did not attend Court in a matter so important, which affects the lives of unpaid lower staff. Counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation observed to the Court that he was not aware of what lies on record, and he had not been instructed on this, and what has happened is bad. He accepted that an assessment is an exercise, and a bill rests on it. He saw that a payment to the Patna Municipal Corporation was received on a simple letter. The Additional Advocate General was aghast, he said he will bring this matter to the notice of the Chief Secretary. The Court enquired from him that in a matter like this, was it not the duty of the Commissioner and Secretary of the Urban Department and the Chief Executive Officer to be present in Court? The Additional Advocate General said that only very recently both have been transferred out. The Court then did enquire who was giving instructions to whom. Who was managing the case which was being presented by the Patna Municipal Corporation? Why was the Additional Advocate General II, not instructed. The Additional Advocate General said that only very recently both have been transferred out. The Court then did enquire who was giving instructions to whom. Who was managing the case which was being presented by the Patna Municipal Corporation? Why was the Additional Advocate General II, not instructed. After all part of the money had to be deposited by the State of Bihar also. 13. Both the Additional Advocate General II and Counsel who claims to appear on behalf of Patna Municipal Corporation also noticed the record that the High Court had made payment on a letter, also on behalf of the Law Ministry Government of Bihar, for premises occupied by the Law Department, Standing Counsel, Government Advocates, and the Advocate Generals establishment. The Patna Municipal Corporation was told by the Registrar General that of the recently occupied premises on a completion certificate by the State Government itself, the arrears have to be bifurcated for the assessment of the High Court, and the assessment of the State Government, its Law Department separately. But, the payment for both had been made by the High Court. 14. Of the revision made retrospectively and unilaterally by the Chief Executive Officer, the High Court simply told the Additional Advocate General that the State may supply the money and the payment may be made during the course of the week, so that High Court could make a deposit. The Additional Advocate General realized that such a callous retrospective revision would bring the State Government into trouble in making deposit of moneys which may not be due. However, the High Court gave the Additional Advocate General two options, regardless, and without questioning the demand, whether it is irregular or illegal. The State Government could send the money during the course of the week, or the High Court will send the Registrar General to the Corporate body which is the elected representatives, their comity or committee, and they shall judge the action of the Chief Executive Officer in manufacturing a retrospective bill of an assessment not made, of buildings which were not even constructed and occupied only during the last financial year. After all the elected Councilors are an institution of self-government. By the Constitution of India they are the third tier of the government. After all the elected Councilors are an institution of self-government. By the Constitution of India they are the third tier of the government. Before them the High Court is only an ordinary assessee and they shall judge the High Court on the rateable taxes, duty assessed. The High Court will keep its commitment in accordance with the procedures which the Law has prescribed. 15. But, what the Chief Executive Officer has done is mischief. He did this to prejudice the public. He did this to rnanufacture a defence which was not available.He did this to interfere with the course oil justice, in a pending case, where the cause was payment of arrears and retirement dues not paid to employees of the Patna Municipal Corporation. The Chief Executive Officer, a Civil Servant, was playing to the gallery in creating sensationalism. In a pending matter before the court he tended to scandalize and lower the authority of the High Court; prejudice the course of judicial proceeding and interfere with it; obstruct the administration of justice. What is worse in a case where poor have to receive their salaries in arrears and retirement benefits. Some employees may be dead. He had no intention nor did he show any bona fide efforts, to solve the problem of unpaid employees, whether of salary or pensions, He did not comply with the order of 21 July, 2003, nor showed any efforts to resolve a serious issue. He disregarded the proceedings at the High Court. He claims immunity from answerability. The law has structured his position as such he says. 16. When he gave his statements to the Press on a manufactured record, he forgot his answerability was in Court. This was bad enough. But, he filed an affidavit repeating his assertions. The affidavit was sworn on 27 August, 2003. Today, the purpose of the affidavit has been achieved in delaying proceedings. It also delays the dominant purpose of these proceedings to bring relief to subordinate lower grade employees seeking arrears of service dues. If this was a suit for a declaration before the lower court, what would this Chief Executive Officer say? Where did he receive his sanction to take a defence on behaif of the Patna Municipal Corporation? Did he consult the Mayor and the Councilors? If this was a suit for a declaration before the lower court, what would this Chief Executive Officer say? Where did he receive his sanction to take a defence on behaif of the Patna Municipal Corporation? Did he consult the Mayor and the Councilors? Did he consult the Commissioner and Secretary, Urban Department, if he was talking of the affairs of a superseded Corporation? He was feuding with the Secretary and Commissioner. This was in the Press. Who gave him more powers than the Secretary and the Commissioner? Then, if he was aware and at issues with authorities as reported by the very media to whom he went for making press statements and was facing action then where was his authority sanctioned to answer for the Patna Municipal Corporation? Why did he not bring these matters to the knowledge of the elected representatives through the Mayor? Arrears of taxes is accounts it is audited. These are fiscal matters, these cannot be decided by the Chief Executive Officer alone. If he was acting on behalf of the affairs of a superseded corporation sole, then, hes answerable to the law. These issues are old not new. Where did the money of the Patna Municipal Corporation go, its revenue and its expenditure. This is public accountability, as is the question of why the employees have not been paid. The public has a right to know. 17. On the ground that the Chief Secretary has a marriage in the family, the Additional Advocate General sought an adjournment. He acknowledged that the matter is serious and that the employees have to be paid. He acknowledged, after seeing the record of the High Court, that this bogie of arrears by making revised bills was scandalous. 18. On the next date, it has now were in charge of their portfolios when the Court passed its order on 21 July, 2003, excepting the last Chief Secretary, who retired, will be present in Court. This means the Chief Executive Officer who filed the affidavit sworn on 27 August, 2003, the person who was Commissioner and Secretary Urban Department when the order was passed, and the present Chief Secretary. 19. As desired by the Additional Advocate General, put up on Thursday next.