Authority must decide supported unpaid-salary claims by a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioners claimed unpaid salary/honorarium relating to the period during which their contractual engagement subsisted.

They had earlier approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 2844 of 2001 and analogous cases, where, by order dated 26 June 2001, the authorities were directed to pay the admitted dues to the petitioners and similarly situated persons within one month.

Appeals against that decision were dismissed in LPA No. 644 of 2021, and certain petitioners’ Special Leave Petitions, SLP(C) Nos. 25009–25010 of 2023, were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30 August 2024 without interference with the relevant appellate orders.

The State opposed the writ petition on the ground of a delay of more than twenty-one years, absence of prior approach to the authorities, and failure to submit calculations or supporting documents for the alleged dues.

It stated that petitioner nos. 1, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 13 had already received their entire benefits, while the claims of petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 could be considered if supported by individual representations and documents.

During the hearing, the petitioners agreed to seek disposal of the writ petition on this limited basis.

Whether the remaining petitioners should be permitted to submit individual representations, supported by relevant documents, for consideration of their claims for unpaid salary/honorarium despite the delay in approaching the authorities and the Court.

Whether the Director, Department of Science and Technology, should be directed to decide those representations by a reasoned and speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing, and to release any amount found payable.

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly that disputed or inadequately documented service-related monetary claims may first be examined by the competent administrative authority on the basis of a proper representation and supporting records.

It further applied the principles of natural justice, requiring an opportunity of hearing, and the duty of an administrative authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court also took into account the earlier High Court direction dated 26 June 2001 concerning payment of admitted contractual dues, as well as the subsequent appellate and Supreme Court proceedings.

The Court noted that the State disputed the petitioners’ claims on grounds of delay, absence of calculations, and lack of supporting documents.

Since the State was willing to consider the claims of the seven unpaid petitioners upon submission of proper representations, and the petitioners accepted disposal on that limited basis, the Court did not adjudicate the entitlement or quantify any arrears itself.

Instead, it directed petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 to place their individual claims and supporting documents before the competent authority.

To ensure procedural fairness, the authority was required to provide an opportunity of hearing and issue a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed period.

Petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 were directed to file individual representations with supporting documents before the Director, Department of Science and Technology, Bihar, within six weeks from 13 August 2026.

The Director must decide the representations within eight weeks of receipt, after granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

If any petitioner is found entitled to the claimed relief, the admissible benefits must be extended within a further four weeks from the date of the order.

The Court recorded that petitioner nos. 1, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 13 had already been paid their entire benefits, and all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of.