PATNA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Patna University Teachers' Association through its General Secretary seeking this Court's intervention in relation to a number of grievances of the teaching staff of the University. The Petitioner's grievances are enumerated in para 5 of the writ petition; they are many but simply to give an idea of their nature only some of the issues are mentioned here. These include (i) payment of the teachers' salary not in time but after a delay of several months, (ii) the failure of the University to deposit the provident fund amounts deducted from the salaries of the individual employees and (iii) non-payment of the retiral dues of the teachers on their superannuation.

(2.) It is important to note that the allegation giving to the aforesaid grievances are not denied either by the authorities of the State Government or by the University who are jointly made Respondents in this writ petition. It may also be noted at this stage that the Petitioner, seeking the same really had earlier come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11664 of 1992 which was disposed of by a bench of this Court by order dated 1.12.1992 (copy at Annexure 1). Then, this Court did not go into the merits of the Petitioner's claims/grievances and did not issue any positive direction in its favour. It, however, remitted the matter to the Chancellor expressing the desire that the Chancellor should, in the first instance, decide the questions involved in that writ petition after hearing the interested parties including the University and the Government. Following that order the Chancellor heard the Petitioner, the University's Vice-Chancellor and the State Government on the Petitioner's grievances/claims and disposed of by the matter by order dated 12-3-93 (copy at Annexure 2). In his order, the Chancellor found that the grievances of the Petitioner were genuine. He further held that the plea of appointments having been made, in the University in excess of the sanctioned number of posts (as was the case of the State Government) could not be a reasonable ground for not making payment of salaries in time and, thus, to penalise even the genuine employees. The Chancellor further found that the University had absolutely no excuse for not depositing the general provident fund amounts deducted from the monthly salaries of the teaching and the non-teaching staff in their individual accounts and for its failure to keep up-to-date the general provident fund account of its employees. There was also no explanation from the University for depositing the general provident fund amounts in the savings accounts and not in the recurring deposit accounts and thus causing huge loss of interests to the employees. It was further found that the State Government had reduced the budget of the Bihar College of Engineering without any justification and in giving grants to the University it did not take into consideration the fact that the University's requirements of funds had been constantly growing and increasing on account of revision of pay scales and promotions made in the ranks of Readers and professors. On these findings, the Chancellor referred the matter to the State Government and the University authorities to take remedial measures for the redressal of the Petitioner's grievances within a reasonable time. It is unfortunate that the Chancellor's order failed to move the Government and it appears that the situation remains the same as it was when the Petitioner had first come to this Court two years ago. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court once again; this time making an additional grievance that despite the Chancellor's order things remained where they were.

(3.) Coming back to the petition in hand, we may observe that when this case was first taken up for admission before this bench, it was noticed that separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the University and the State. From the counter affidavits filed, it unfortunately appeared that the Respondents had taken the conventional stance of a litigant. Unable to deny the allegations made by the Petitioner, the University and the State Government in their separate counter affidavits adopted a policy of shifting the blame to each other. The University in the affidavit, appeared to lament that for the past several years it received inadequate grants from the State Government in complete disregard of its actual requirements. It was submitted that presently the University was starved of sufficient finances and it was unable to meet the Petitioner's grievances unless adequate funds were provided by the State Government.