SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Pat) 132

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha and Indu Prabha Singh JJ.
Satya Narayan Chowdhary
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5729 of 1992 ;
Decided On : MARCH 23, 1994

Headnote:Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, Sec 35 appointments made by Governing Body-provisions make it evident that sanction for creation of posts by the State of Bihar is a condition precedent-any appointment made in violation of the mandatory provision of Sec. 35 of the Act is illegal-orders of termination issued there is no question of payment of wages-the claim or wages is dependant upon the subsistence of employer-employees relationship-since the University in the counter affidavit stated that the matter for grant of sanction is pending before the State Government and also the fact that the enquiry has been entrusted to the vigilance and records have been seized, interest of justice will be sub-served if the State Government is directed to pass a final order in this regard within six weeks-CWJC 2023/92 disposed on 3.5.93, 1993 (2) BLJR 893, 1993 (2) BLJK 897, 1993 (2) PLJR 618 ref (Paras 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, and 23)

       

Judgment

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. The petitioners who are fourteen in number- and are said to be working in Maharaja Laxmeshwar Singh Medical College, darbhanga (hereinafter to be referred to as the said College have filed this application for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay their salaries.

2. The petitioners are said to have been appointed by the Governing body of the said College on various dates ; the details whereof have been mentioned in Annexure-1 to the writ application.

3. According to the petitioners, on 30-4-1986 and 30-5-1986 recommendations were made by the University for sanction of the posts to the government pursuant to the decisions taken in this regard by a Committee constituted by L N Mithila University (hereinafter to be referred to as the said University ). It is stated that the said College was taken over by the State Government in terms of an order dated 18-8-1985 as a result of which the same became a constituent unit of the said University and whereof the petitioners were allowed to continue in the said College as non-teaching staff.

4. It is stated that although, the decision in this regard has been taken on 29-4-1986 but the said recommendations were in fact sent by the said University to the State Government on 3-5-1986. It has been further submitted that other persons whose names have also been recommended by the said University along with the petitioners on 3-5-1986 are getting their salaries.

5. The petitioners have further pointed out that the State Government took a decision that all the employees who have been working in the taken over Colleges and getting salary from the Governing Body and/whose posts have been recommended by the University for approval before 30-4-1986 shall be paid their salaries.

6. It is stated that some other employees of the said College filed a writ application before this Court being C. W. J, C No 2028 of 1992 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 3-5-1993 wherein the following order was passed :

"it is well settled that an employee either he in Government service or in the service of the respondent-University, is entitled for salary for the period, he has actually worked. As indicated above, in absence of any positive finding of the Vice-Chancellor or the statement of the Principal of the college, it is difficult for us to ascertain whether the petitioners have actually worked in the college after the date take-over. In that view of the matter, for this limited purpose, we direct the Vice-Chancellor, lalit Narayan Mithila University, to examine all the relevant materials as also ascertain from the Principal of the college and find out whether the petitioners were working in the college prior to the date of take over as also whether they have worked even after the date of take over If upon consideration of entire materials, he comes to a conclusion that the petitioners have worked, a necessary direction be issued for payment of their salaries in accordance with law. Since the matter relates to payment of salary, in our view, it requires an early disposal. Accordingly, final order in this regard must be recorded within two months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. However, this order or the order of the Vice-Chancellor shall be subject to without prejudice of the case of either party, which may be pending before the Government and respondent-University. "

7. Mr Ram Chandra Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in view of the aforementioned decision of this Court, there is no reason as to why the petitioners should be discriminated against. It is further submitted that the respondents in their counteraffidavit also have indirectly admitted the petitioners had been working in the said College.

8. Our attention was further drawn to a letter of the State of Bihar dated 25-8-1986 addressed to the Vice-Chancellors of all the Universities which is co





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top