Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.472 of 2011 ====================================================== Prof. (Dr.) Ramesh Prasad, S/o-Late Bishun Lal, R/O M-A/26, Professors' Colony, North Shri Krishnapuri, P.S. Shastrinagar, Patna. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. Patna University through its Vice Chancellor, Patna. 2. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna. 3. The Finance Officer, Patna University, Patna. 4. The Principal, B.N. College, Patna. 5. Dr. Madhurendra Nath Sinha, S/o-Late Rajendra Nath Sinha, R/o-304, Indralok Apartment, New P.P. Colony, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the University : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Adv. For the respondent no.5 : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 14 23-01-2013 By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Patna University for payment of his entire retiral dues including arrears of salary as a consequence of pay revision with effect from 01.04.2007. Petitioner had superannuated on 30.06.2009 as a University Professor from Magadh Mahila College, a constituent College of the Patna University. There are counter affidavits and reply thereto. Having heard
Legal Reasoning
the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. There has been an intervention application filed by one Dr. M.N. Sinha, a University Professor in the Science College, who at the material time was the Controller of examination in B.N. College another constituent College of the University when the petitioner was the Principal of Patna High Court CWJC No.472 of 2011 (14) dt.23-01-2013 - 2 - the said College. The intervention application has been allowed and a counter affidavit has been filed by the said Dr. M.N. Sinha, the intervenor- respondent. The controversy in the present case is limited to a question whether the University can legitimately withhold payment after superannuation of the petitioner on account of a dispute with regard to certain expenses made during service tenure which allegedly remained unaccounted for.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition first submitted that even if the disputed amount is taken into consideration that comes to maximum Rs.4,86,942/-. On the plea of this dispute his entire dues, which is in excess of about Rs.30 lacs, has been withheld. This fact having been brought to the notice of the Court by an order passed earlier wherein this Court directed minimum payment of Rs.7.50 lacs and then directed the University to give final accounts which had yet to be finalized even though petitioner superannuated more than three years back. By way of supplementary counter affidavit, it has been brought on record that pursuant to earlier order of this Court an amount of about Rs.7.80 lacs has been paid to the petitioner’s account even submitted which do not appear to be properly quantified. Apart from giving account for payment made what has been stated is that revised Pension Payment Order No.2012 dated 21.12.2012 has been issued. It is admitted that gratuity amount of Rs.3,50,000.00 has also been paid. In paragraph-5 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is stated that upon last pay revision an amount of Rs.10,76,517.00 is due to be paid. Similarly, on account of pay revision the difference of leave encashment, which is to be paid is Patna High Court CWJC No.472 of 2011 (14) dt.23-01-2013 - 3 - Rs.2,66,252.00. Thus, admittedly, on these two counts itself an amount of Rs.13,42,769.00 is due. In paragraph-8 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is stated that revised P.P.O. with revised pension has been issued for payment but no amount has been quantified as payable. With regard to pension, I may notice that the petitioner admits that he was receiving pension on unrevised pay-scale. Thus, he is now entitled to receive pension on the revised pay-scale plus arrears of pension in the revised pay-scale as well. This quantification the University has not made. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that if this amount is calculated, i.e., arrears of pension at the revised scale since his superannuation up to date along with the amount of Rs.13 lacs and odd, as noticed above, the total amount that would be due from the University would exceed almost Rs.30 lacs and, on frivolous plea of accounting dispute of Rs.4,86,942.00, this amount is being withheld. Regrettably, learned counsel for the University is not in a position to dispute this position on the face of it. This shows highly arbitrary action on the part of the University in withholding such substantial sums of money of a retired teacher. Now, coming to the dispute. Learned counsel for the University does not dispute that no departmental proceedings or any proceeding whatsoever were initiated against the petitioner in relation to the said amount in dispute. At one stage, it was stated that a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner, but, later on, on protest by the petitioner the said statement was withdrawn as has been inadvertently made. Thus, it is established that neither any departmental proceedings were initiated during the service tenure of the petitioner nor any such validly initiated proceeding is Patna High Court CWJC No.472 of 2011 (14) dt.23-01-2013 - 4 - pending as of date nor any criminal case is pending as of date. The petitioner superannuated more than three years back as noted above. The question is, under what authority this payment has been withheld. It is established rule of law that no person can be deprived of his property except by procedure established by law (refer Article-300 A of the Constitution). Learned counsel for the University is unable to show any authority of law to withhold this amount. He admits that there have been no departmental proceedings initiated as against the petitioner or for that matter as against Dr. M.N. Sinha, who is still in service. There has been no finding by any competent authority of the liability of the petitioner to the extent as aforesaid. There has been no criminal proceeding initiated so far as petitioner is concerned. He has stated that he had paid the aforesaid amount by cheque to the Dr. M.N. Sinha, who was the then Controller of Examination and petitioner alleges that the said intervenor-respondent has failed to account for it. On the other hand, on behalf of Dr. M.N. Sinha, intervenor- respondent it is stated that he had fully accounted for the said amount but the papers in that regard were concealed and/or got misplaced by the petitioner. This Court is not required to adjudicate upon this dispute which had started long before superannuation of the petitioner. The University did not initiate any proceeding while petitioner was in service now. After superannuation of the petitioner, the master servant relationship having ceased and the University statute is not authorizing any proceeding against a superannuated employee. Hence, no proceeding can be started against the petitioner. Thus, in my view, this amount cannot be held back from payment of dues to the petitioner. On the facts aforesaid, I have no option but to direct that the entire amount of dues of the petitioner, which includes Patna High Court CWJC No.472 of 2011 (14) dt.23-01-2013 - 5 - arrears of salary, arrears of pension on revised scale, pension on revised scale, arrears of leave encashment or any other amount due, shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from today, failing which the petitioner shall be liable to be paid the said amount with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when the amounts had actually due for payment. The responsibility of full payment would be exclusively on the Vice-Chancellor of the Patna University.
Decision
With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)