IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

C.W.J.C. No. _________ of 2021

Parmeshwar Prasad

...Petitioner

Versus

Patna University

…Respondents

SUB: SERVICE MATTERS (OTHER THAN

EDUCATION SERVICE)

INDEX

Sl.No Annexures Particulars Page No.

1. Synopsis with Dates of

Events.

2. WRIT Petition with Affidavit.

3. Annexure- I A true copy of representation

letter sent to Vice- Chancellor
of Patna University, dated
 27.03.2019, by the petitioner.

4. Annexure- II A true copy of representation

letter sent to Vice- Chancellor
of Patna University, dated
29.04.2019, by the petitioner.

5. Annexure- III A true copy of the bill of due

salary sent to Assistant
Engineer, Patna University,
dated 15.06.2020.

6. Vakalatnama

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

 (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

C.W.J.C. No. _________ of 2021

Parameshwar Prasad

...Petitioner

Versus

Patna University through its Vice Chancellor and Ors.

…Respondents

SYNOPSIS

That the instant writ petition filed Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is being preferred for the grant of following
reliefs by this Hon’ble Court:
i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ(s)/order(s) or
direction(s) commanding the
Respondents to pay the Petitioner his
arrear salary of Rs.3,67,220/- (Rupees
Three lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Two
Hundred Twenty only) which has been
due on the part of Respondent
Authorities since February, 2016.
 ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ(s)/order(s) or
direction(s) commanding the
Respondents to provide compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only)
for the agony, mental harassment and
physical harassment, to compensate the
loss of livelihood occurred due to non-
payment of salary to the Petitioner since
February,2016.

AND/OR
iii. To pass any other order or direction
which deems fit in the best interest of the
Petitioner.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

Date Particulars
01.02.2016 The Petitioner was appointed as a daily light
operator to switch on and switch off the lights on
Minto Hostel Road inside the Patna University
premises by the Mr. Arvind Kumar, Electrical
Engineer of the Patna University in lieu of a
monthly remuneration of Rs.7000/- per month.
27.03.2019 The Petitioner sent a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of
Patna University requesting for the payment of his
due salary which has not been paid to him since
February, 2016, but no action was taken.
29.04.2019 The Petitioner again sent a representation to the
 vice-chancellor of Patna University requesting for
the payment of due salary which has not been paid
to him since February, 2016. Upon which the Vice-
Chancellor forwarded the application to Electrical
Department, Patna University, but again no action
was taken.
15.06.2020 Petitioner gave bill of salary of amount Rupees
Three Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred
and Twenty to Assistant Engineer for the payment
of due salary since February, 2016 but again no
action was taken.

No action taken, hence this WRIT petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

C.W.J.C. No. _________ of 2021

 In the matter of
an application
under Article
226 of the
Constitution of
India;

And

In the matter of:

1. Kumari Kriti Ranjan, Female, Aged about 30 years, W/O

Pawan Kumar, R/O Majhos, Jehanabad, Paibigha, Bihar-
804424.
...Petitioner

Versus

1. Patna University, through its Vice-Chancellor, Patna

University-800005.
2. Principle, Patna University- 800005.
3. MR. Arvind Kumar, Electrical Engineer, Patna Law College,
Patna University- 800005.
4. MR. Krishna, Assistant Engineer, Patna Law College, Patna
University- 800005.
…Respondents

To,
 The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, the Chief Justice of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna and his companion Justices of the
said Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition

on behalf of the
petitioner above
named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the instant writ petition is being preferred for the grant of
following reliefs by this Hon’ble Court:
i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ(s)/order(s) or
direction(s) commanding the
Respondents to employee the
petitioner in the respondent
department, on the basis of
Anukampa guidelines and rules.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ(s)/order(s) or
direction(s) commanding the
Respondents to provide interim
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakhs only) for the
livelihood of the petitioner.

AND/OR
 iii. To pass any other order or direction
which deems fit in the best interest of
the Petitioner.

2. That the instant petition is being preferred, among others to be

urged at the bar, on the following:

Grounds:

i. Whether the irresponsible and

negligent attitude towards the
petitioner violated the
fundamental right to livelihood
enshrined under article 21 of
Constitution of India or not?

ii. Whether the Respondent

authorities have taken any steps
to resolve the issue of the
petitioner which ultimately
violated the right to life and
personal liberty enshrined under
article 21 of Constitution of
India or not?

3. That the Petitioner is a citizen of India and he resides within the

territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner was
working as daily light operator in the Patna University who was
appointed by the Mr. Arvind Kumar, electrical engineer at Patna
University on salary basis. The petitioner has not been paid-off
with salary accordingly with the agreement between the petitioner
 and respondent. The petitioner has no source of livelihood except
the salary which should be paid by the respondents.

4. That the Petitioner and the Respondents are amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

Brief facts of the case

5. That in 1947, father of the petitioner, namely Nathuni Ram was

looking for the source of livelihood to take care of his family and
he found a job in Patna University for the position of Ward Servant
in Patna University. Nathuni Ram was appointed as Ward Servant
in Minto Hostel, Patna University, which provided the livelihood.
Nathuni Ram was very diligent and sincere with his work due to
which he made good relationship with peoples and authorities of
Patna University. In 1970 Nathinu Ram lost his job due to age
factor.

6. That on 01.02.2016, petitioner was employed as a daily light

operator by Mr. Arvind Kumar, electrical engineer at Patna
University on the basis of oral agreement. The work of the
petitioner was to switch off and on the lights of the hostel and night
lamps of the street of the hostel premises accordingly with the
needs. The salary of the petitioner was set at RS. 234 (Rupees Two
Hundred Thirty Four) per day and RS. 7000(Rupees Seven
Thousand) per month. Petitioner started working in the Patna
University as Light Operator with sincerity and diligency, as he did
not wanted to lose his only source of livelihood.

7. That after the completion of one month the petitioner was not paid-
off with salary which was agreed by oral agreement. Even after the
 completion of second month the petitioner was not paid-off with
the salary which was agreed by the respondent and petitioner, but
the petitioner continued to perform his job, as he at no cost wanted
to lose his only source of livelihood.

8. That on 27.03.2019, the petitioner being worried about his survival

in this world, sent a representation letter to the vice-chancellor of
Patna University for the payment of his 3 years due salary, with a
hope that vice-chancellor is the apex post of the university and the
vice chancellor will resolve his issue of payment of salary, but no
actions was taken.

A true copy of representation

letter sent to Vice- Chancellor
of Patna University, dated
27.03.2019 is being annexed
herewith as Annexure-I.

9. That upon the non-action, on 29.04.2019, the petitioner send

another representation letter to vice chancellor for the solution of
non-payment of salary, and again the vice chancellor forwarded the
letter to the electricity department and again no action was taken on
the part of electricity department for the payment of salary of the
petitioner which was the only source of livelihood of the petitioner
and his family.

A true copy of representation

letter sent to Vice- Chancellor
of Patna University, dated
29.04.2019 is being annexed
herewith as Annexure-II.
10. That on 15.06.2020, petitioner gave a bill to Assistant Engineer,
Patna University of Rupee three lakh sixty seven thousand two
hundred and twenty (RS. 3,67,220/-) for the payment of his due
salary but again no action was taken. The petitioner being
aggrieved of the violation of fundamental right to life enshrined
under article 21 of Constitution of India, again contacted the
Assistant Engineer, Patna University for the payment of due salary
of the petitioner but again no actions was taken on the part of
respondent to resolve the issue of the petitioner.

A true copy of the bill of due

salary sent to Assistant
Engineer, Patna University,
dated 15.06.2020 is being
annexed herewith as
Annexure-III.

11. That on 01.01.2021 petitioner started sitting at Krishna Ghat behind

Minto Hostel, Patna University, as strike, with hope that the
respondents will put efforts to resolve his issue but yet no action
was taken by the respondents.

Oral Agreements are Enforceable

12. That it is pertinent to mention here that it is well settled principle

that oral agreement is enforceable in the court of laws, and none of
the parties entered into oral agreement can escape from his liability.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in many cases emphasized that oral
agreement is enforceable in the court laws and the oral agreement
is the first step towards the final written agreements in any
 agreements between the parties and therefore no person can escape
from the liability arisen due to oral agreements.

13. That in the case of Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh, (1998) 3

SCC 471, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

“…13. Before we proceed to consider what are

lawful agreements or what are voidable or void
contracts, we may point out that it is not
necessary under law that every contract must be
in writing. There can be an equally binding
contract between the parties on the basis of oral
agreement unless there is a law which requires
the agreement to be in writing…"
It is well settled precedent that any oral agreement agreed by the
offerer and offeree is as much enforceable by law as written
agreement is enforceable.
14.That in the case of Kollipara Sriramulu v. T. Aswatha Narayana,
(1968) 3 SCR 387 : AIR 1968 SC 1028, the Hon’ble Supreme held that
“…As observed by the Lord Chancellor (Lord
Cranworth) in Ridgway v. Wharton [6 HLC 238,
63] , the fact of a subsequent agreement being
prepared may be evidence that the previous
negotiations did not amount to a concluded
agreement, but the mere fact that persons wish to
have a formal agreement drawn up does not
establish the proposition that they cannot be
bound by a previous agreement. In Von
Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg v. Alexander [(1912) 1 CH
284, 288] it was stated by Parker, J. as follows:
 “It appears to be well settled by the authorities
that if the documents or letters relied on as
constituting a contract contemplate the execution
of a further contract between the parties, it is a
question of construction whether the execution of
the further contact is a condition or term of the
bargain or whether it is a mere expression of the
desire of the parties as to the manner in which the
transaction already agreed to will in fact go
through. In the former case there is no
enforceable contract either because the condition
is unfulfilled or because the law does not
recognize a contract to enter into a contract. In
the latter case there is a binding contract and the
reference to the more formal document may be
ignored…”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court again emphasized that the oral

agreement is the first step towards the final agreement, and no
person can escape from the liability of oral agreements on the
ground that they are the orally said and agreed in the course of
framing the agreements.

Right to Life includes Right to livelihood

15. That a person's livelihood refers to their "means of securing the

basic necessities (food, water, shelter and clothing) of life".
Livelihood is defined as a set of activities essential to everyday life
that are conducted over one's life span. Such activities could
 include securing water, food, fodder, medicine, shelter, and
clothing. An individual's livelihood involves the capacity to acquire
aforementioned necessities in order to satisfy the basic needs of
themselves and their household. The activities are usually carried
out repeatedly and in a manner that is sustainable and providing of
dignity.

16. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many cases emphasized that
right to life under article 21 of Constitution of India also includes
right to livelihood. Livelihood mostly depends upon the source of
income of individual and in this instant case the petitioner’s
fundamental right to livelihood under article 21 has been violated
by the respondents by non-payment of salary.

17. That in the case of Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor

Congress [1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213 :
1990 Supp (1) SCR 142] (SCR at pp. 276 and 277), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that

“…232. The right to life includes right to

livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore
cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in
authority. The employment is not a bounty from
them nor can its survival be at their mercy.
Income is the foundation of many fundamental
rights and when work is the sole source of
income, the right to work becomes as much
fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to
be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises
 and uncertain applications. That will be a
mockery of them…”

18. That in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.,

(1985) 3 SCC 545, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right
to life under article 21 also includes right to livelihood, and no
person can be deprived of it,

“…As we have stated while summing up the

petitioners' case, the main plank of their argument
is that the right to life which is guaranteed by
Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and
since, they will be deprived of their livelihood if
they are evicted from their slum and pavement
dwellings, their eviction is tantamount to
deprivation of their life and is hence
unconstitutional. For purposes of argument, we
will assume the factual correctness of the premise
that if the petitioners are evicted from their
dwellings, they will be deprived of their
livelihood. Upon that assumption, the question
which we have to consider is whether the right to
life includes the right to livelihood. We see only
one answer to that question, namely, that it
does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by
Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not
mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or
taken away as, for example, by the imposition
and execution of the death sentence, except
according to procedure established by law. That
is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally
important facet of that right is the right to
livelihood because, no person can live without
the means of living, that is, the means of
livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated
as a part of the constitutional right to life, the
easiest way of depriving a person of his right to
life would be to deprive him of his means of
livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such
deprivation would not only denude the life of its
effective content and meaningfulness but it would
make life impossible to live. And yet, such
deprivation would not have to be in accordance
with the procedure established by law, if the right
to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right
to life. That, which alone makes it possible to
live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be
deemed to be an integral component of the right
to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood
and you shall have deprived him of his life.
Indeed, that explains the massive migration of the
rural population to big cities. They migrate
because they have no means of livelihood in the
villages. The motive force which propels their
desertion of their hearths and homes in the
village is the struggle for survival, that is, the
struggle for life. So unimpeachable is the
evidence of the nexus between life and the means
of livelihood. They have to eat to live: only a
handful can afford the luxury of living to eat.
That they can do, namely, eat, only if they have
the means of livelihood. That is the context in
which it was said by Douglas, J.
in Barsky [Barsky v. Board of Regents of
University of State of New York, 1954 SCC
OnLine US SC 42 : 98 L Ed 829 : 347 US 442
(1954)] that the right to work is the most precious
liberty that man possesses. It is the most precious
liberty because, it sustains and enables a man to
live and the right to life is a precious freedom.
‘Life’, as observed by Field, J.
in Munn v. Illinois [Munn v. Illinois, 1876 SCC
OnLine US SC 4 : 24 L Ed 77 : 94 US 113
(1877)] , means something more than mere
animal existence and the inhibition against the
deprivation of life extends to all those limits and
faculties by which life is enjoyed. This
observation was quoted with approval by this
Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [Kharak
Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 :
(1963) 2 Cri LJ 329]

33. Article 39(a) of the Constitution, which is a

directive principle of State policy, provides that
the State shall, in particular, direct its policy
towards securing that the citizens, men and
women equally, have the right to an adequate
means of livelihood. Article 41, which is another
 directive principle, provides, inter alia, that the
State shall, within the limits of its economic
capacity and development, make effective
provision for securing the right to work in cases
of unemployment and of undeserved want.
Article 37 provides that the directive principles,
though not enforceable by any court, are
nevertheless fundamental in the governance of
the country. The principles contained in Articles
39(a) and 41 must be regarded as equally
fundamental in the understanding and
interpretation of the meaning and content of
fundamental rights. If there is an obligation upon
the State to secure to the citizens an adequate
means of livelihood and the right to work, it
would be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to
livelihood from the content of the right to
life. The State may not, by affirmative action, be
compellable to provide adequate means of
livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any
person, who is deprived of his right to livelihood
except according to just and fair procedure
established by law, can challenge the deprivation
as offending the right to life conferred by Article
21…”

19. That the Petitioner have no other effective and efficacious remedy
than to move to your lordships by way of filing this Public Interest
Litigation Petition for redressal of the grievances.
20. That the petitioner has not moved earlier before this Hon’ble court
in this matter.

It is, therefore, prayed that your

Lordship may graciously be
pleased to admit this application
and issue RULE NISI calling upon
the respondents to show cause as to
why the relief sought for in
paragraph 1 of this writ application
may not be granted to the
petitioners and after hearing the
parties considering of the show
Cause if any and allow this writ
petition

AND
It is further prayed during the
pendency of the present writ
application your Lordship may
graciously be pleased to order
the respondents to provide at
least 50% of total amount of
salary due, as interim relief, so
that the petitioner can focus on
the improvements in his life.

AND/OR

To pass such other orders or

orders, writ(s) or its direction or
 directions as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case
for the ends of Justice.

And for this, the petitioner shall ever pray.