Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 936 (PAT)

Shanker Prasad Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2008-07-14

NAVIN SINHA

body2008
Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners, for the respondent Lalit Narayan Mithila University and the respondent State. 2. The petitioners are stated to be teachers of the Womens College, Samastipur under the respondent University. It is their case that their entry into the service and promotion are all against the sanctioned posts. They are before this Court with a grievance for certain arrears of salary for specified period under the UGC Scale and differential Dearness Allowance as also interim relief along with prayer for interest on the admitted dues. 3. The claim for salary essentially turns on administrative issue of facts unless issues of any eligibility to the claim in law arise. Presently a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University from which it is apparent that no legal issues requiring adjudication under Article 226 arise in the present matter. The position quite simply is that the University throws up its hands to urge that it shall make payment to which the petitioners are entitled to, only after it receives funds from the State Government. That the Auditor of the State Government had raised certain objection and therefore the recommendation made by the University to the State Government for payment has been withdrawn. 4. In the present case the College in question having examined the claim of the petitioners and their eligibility submitted it to the University. The University on its satisfaction has forwarded it to the State Government. Prima facie there did not appear to be any issue of legal nature of consideration of eligibility in law. The respondent State has chosen not to file any counter affidavit notwithstanding that the writ petition is pending since 1.3.2005. 5. That an auditor may have raised issues of financial indiscipline in the University is of no concern to the petitioners unless the indiscipline pertains specifically to their claims. 6. Salary can be equated to a fundamental right in absence of which it can acquire dimension of Begar under Article 23. It would be a dichotomy if the State were to violate Article 23. 7. To this Court those who may have come before a court of law seeking relief for arrears of salary and those who have not come to the portals of the court stands in two separate categories. It would be a dichotomy if the State were to violate Article 23. 7. To this Court those who may have come before a court of law seeking relief for arrears of salary and those who have not come to the portals of the court stands in two separate categories. Those who have come to the Court have the protection of the command of a Court with them as distinct from those who have not come to the Court. The command of the Court has to be complied with by those against whom it is issued unless they come forward with a valid justification. Presently no such justification has been placed. The Court therefore has no reason to doubt the claim and eligibility of the petitioner at this stage. 8. Any internal wrangling administrative or otherwise of the authorities are of no concern to the petitioners and cannot be put forward as a defence to deny to what the petitioners are otherwise legitimately entitled. 9. This Court therefore directs the Principal of the College in question, the Vice Chancellor of the University and the Secretary cum Commissioner of the Department of Higher Education government of Bihar to sit together, answer the queries raised by each another and pay the admissible dues of the petitioners within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. This Court also directs that such first sitting must be held by them within ten days of the production of a copy of this order before them. In the event that the admissible dues are not paid within the aforesaid period or anyone of the three noticed above hinders the decision as aforesaid to be arrived at or implementation of such decision, shall be clearly exposing themselves to the risk of contempt proceeding in view of clear direction to them to assess admissible dues within four months and to pay the same. 10. The writ application stands disposed.