Satyendra Chandra Sinha v. The Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University

Patna High Court CWJC No.21615 of 2012 (2) dt.13-12-2013 2 several enquiries, inspections and audits have been conducted but no objections were ever raised against the advances made. (iii) For a direction to the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No.3 & 4 to calculate the due amount of arrears of salary of the Petitioner and other employees against whom the advances have been sanctioned by the Petitioner, in the light of direction of the University contained in letter No.4107-4168 dated 14.10.2011 and to adjust the amount of advance against the arrears of salary because as per the assessment made by the Petitioner more than Rs. 20 lacs was due upon the University to be paid to the Petitioner as arrears of salary. (iv) For a direction to the respondent No.3 & 4 to provide the requisite details to the University pursuant to letter No. 2883-2944 dated 14.09.2012 with regard to the Petitioner so that the University may sent requisition to the State Govt. for payment of pension to the Petitioner as the Petitioner is going to superannuate on 30.06.2013 and the respondent No.4 has deliberately not provided the details sought by the University with only intention to deprive the Petitioner from the benefit of pension after his retirement. (v) For staying the operation of letter No. 142/2012 dated 12-10-2012 during the pendency of this application and for a direction to the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No.4 to pay the salary to the Petitioner from August, 2012 till date as the salary of the Petitioner cannot be withheld by the Principal without any direction from the University and without any finding of financial Patna High Court CWJC No.21615 of 2012 (2) dt.13-12-2013 3 irregularities against the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner is in an urgent requirement of money as his wife, namely, Renu Sinha has undergone kidney transplantation and her life is dependent upon costly medicines, stoppages of salary in an arbitrary manner may ultimately lead to her death.” but, now, when the writ application has been taken up for its final disposal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that part of the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed in view of the order of the Registrar dated 1.4.2013, whereby and whereunder, a direction was issued to the Principal of the J.R.S. College, Jamalpur to make payment of all the pending salary of the petitioner. Counsel, however, has an oppression that as the earlier Principal, respondent no.4, namely, Sri Pramod Bhartiya was biased and prejudiced against him, he was not being allowed to the amount, which he was entitled even as per order of the Registrar of the University. Learned counsel for the University, who has not filed any counter affidavit, has taken a stand that the grievance of the petitioner basically was/is against the Principal of the college but, now when the Principal, respondent no.4, Sri Pramod Bhartiya has already been removed from the J.R.S. College, Jamalur, it is expected that whatever legitimate amount is payable to the Patna High Court CWJC No.21615 of 2012 (2) dt.13-12-2013 4 petitioner and has been paid to his counterpart teachers will also be paid to him. In view of the subsequent development including issuance of the University order dated 1.4.2013 as also the removal of the Principal, namely, Sri Pramod Bhartiya from the J.R.S. College, Jamalpur, this Court would direct both the Registrar of the University and the Principal of the college to examine the grievance of the petitioner and make payment of all admissible amount for which funds have already been released by the State Government and such payment has also been made to the counterpart teachers of the college of the petitioner. This must be done within a period of four months from the date of filing of the representation along with the relevant document and copy of this order by the petitioner before the Registrar of the University as also the Principal of the college. It is, however, made clear that both the Registrar of the University and the Principal of the college are being directed to ensure payment of legitimate amount admissible and payable to the petitioner and if there be any hiccup in the mind of the Principal of the college, he must take a clarification from the Registrar of the University but, in no event, the payment of amount to which the petitioner is entitled would be deprived to Patna High Court CWJC No.21615 of 2012 (2) dt.13-12-2013 5 him in this period of four months. As with regard to settlement of retirement benefit of the petitioner which is actually not the subject matter of this writ application, all that can be said is that if the petitioner has already retired on 30.6.2010, his retirement benefit should be also settled expeditiously and if the pension papers of the petitioner is not forwarded till now by the Principal of the college, the successor of the respondent no.4 must do the needful so that the retirement benefit of the petitioner gets paid within a reasonable period of time. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-