Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11298 of 2013 ====================================================== Dr. Praveen Kumar S/O Late L.N. Karn, Resident Of Mohalla- Flat No.- C/2, Onkar Appartment, Shekhpura Bagicha, P.S.- Shastrinagar, District- Patna. Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 3. Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 4. Principal In-Charge, B.S. College, Danapur, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Human Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yugal Kishore, Sr. Adv. For the University : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dinbandhu Singh, GP-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 22-11-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for issuance of a direction to the Magadh University for making payment of arrears and current salary of the petitioner since August, 2012 and till date.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner holding the substantive post of Reader in Magadh University while posted at B.D. College, Patna was appointed as a Principal of a constituent college in the Magadh University and he continued to work in that capacity for a long time whereafter he was made Professor In- charge of B.S. College, Danapur in the month of March, 2012 and Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2013 (3) dt.22-11-2013 2 in that capacity he had worked till 16.8.2012. According to Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, after the office order dated 16.8.2012 removing the petitioner from the post of Professor In-charge was passed, the petitioner had joined in the University and remained waiting for instruction from the University for his next place of posting. Mr. Yugal Kishore in this regard has explained that in the meantime, the petitioner with others got appointed on the post of Principal vide notification dated 16.1.2013 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner had submitted his joining on 8.3.2013 which was also accepted by the Registrar of the University on the same day. It is the case of the petitioner that ever since 8.3.2013, the petitioner is waiting for posting on the post of Principal but, has not been either given the place of posting or payment of salary of the post of Principal. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner will not be entitled for payment of salary for the period 17.8.2012 to 7.3.2013 because he had not worked on the post of Reader which was the only post left to him after cancellation of his earlier appointment as a Professor In-charge. He has also submitted that though the petitioner had joined on 7.3.2013 on the post of Principal in view of the appointment letter dated 16.1.2013 but Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2013 (3) dt.22-11-2013 3 then as he had not complied the requisite terms and conditions of the appointment letter, namely, submission of NOC and relieving order of the employer, he will also not be entitled for any payment of salary for the period 7.3.2013 onwards. This Court is in agreement with Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the Magadh University so far it relates to denial of payment of salary to the petitioner for the period 17.8.2012 to 6.3.2013 for a simple reason that the petitioner in this period did not work on any post nor had even offered himself to work on any post. The petitioner was holding the substantive post of Reader and his place of posting was B.D. College, Patna when he got initially appointed as a Principal in the year 2009. After such appointment of the petitioner was made and he was continuing on said post on temporary basis because his lien on the post was never terminated when the petitioner was notified to work as a Professor In-charge, he was entitled to get his salary for the work done both in the period of Principal or Professor-In-charge and that is how the petitioner was eligible to get his salary up to 16.8.2012. After 16.8.2012 when his notification and order for working as a Professor In-charge was rescinded/recalled or taken back by the University, the petitioner had to revert back to his parent post i.e. the post of Reader in B.D. College or where he had Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2013 (3) dt.22-11-2013 4 left for joining the post of Principal. The petitioner had no reason to go to the Registrar of the University or wait for posting in the University Headquarter, inasmuch as, the University Headquarter had no concern with the petitioner after quashing of his appointment on the post of Principal and removal on the post of Professor In-charge. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any justification in the order of the University passed with retrospective effect on 14.2.2013 allowing him to join in the Magadh University Headquarters. This Court fails to understand that what post was available for the petitioner in the Magadh University where his joining was provisionally allowed by the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University. This order dated 14.2.2013 allowing the joining of the petitioner with effect from 17.8.2012 was, therefore, definitely a procured order and that cannot vest any right to the petitioner much less for claiming payment of salary for the period he had not worked on any post. The fact remains that after 17.8.2012, the petitioner had not gone to his parent college to work on the post of Reader and in fact did not work on any post at any place and, therefore, he would not be entitled to payment of salary from 17.8.2012 to 6.3.2013. The story however will be entirely different from Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2013 (3) dt.22-11-2013 5 7.3.2013, inasmuch as after the appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner asking him to join the post of Principal on 16.1.2013 and in pursuance whereof the petitioner had submitted his joining on 8.3.2013. Such joining letter submitted by the petitioner was also allowed by the Registrar of the University. The plea, therefore, of Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the University that since the petitioner had not submitted the NOC and the relieving letter of the employer would literally make the University and its officials a laughing stock. The employer of the petitioner was none else but Magadh University itself and, therefore, there was no question of issuance of relieving letter by the some employer. Technically speaking, when the order had been passed by the Registrar on 14.3.2013 accepting the joining of the petitioner in the University Headquarters even on provisional basis there was again no requirement for him of being relieved by the same University Headquarters where he had actually submitted his joining. In that view of the matter, the plea of the petitioner of not furnishing the NOC and relieving letter cannot stand in the way for either being denied a place of posting or payment of salary from 7.3.2013. There is no dispute that the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 16.1.2013 has not been rescinded as yet and is Patna High Court CWJC No.11298 of 2013 (3) dt.22-11-2013 6 still enforce. It is true that Mr. Sinha also has tried to highlight it that an enquiry is going on with regard to all those appointments made on 16.1.2013 under the direction of the Hon’ble Chancellor but then till date, neither the Hon’ble Chancellor has stayed the operation of appointment letter nor the appointment letter of the petitioner on the post of Principal has been set aside by any competent authority. It thus becomes clear that the University itself has not allocated work to the petitioner ever since 7.3.2013 and as such, the petitioner will be entitled for payment of salary from 7.3.2013 onwards and till date as also in future till the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 16.1.2013 remains in force. Thus, the petitioner must be paid his arrears of salary from 7.3.2013 onwards as also his current salary within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the payment of salary of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University shall remain withheld till such payment is made to the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and direction,
Decision
this application is disposed of. Rishi/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)