Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 254 (PAT)

Shaligram Singh v. Magadh University

2001-03-20

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2001
Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. As the common question with respect to the benefit of commuted portion of the pension is involved in both the writ petition, with the consent of the parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment/order. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sanction and payment of retirement benefits admissible under the Statutes for grant of retirement benefits to the employees of Bihar/Ranchi/Bhagalpur/Magadh/LN. Mithila/ K.S.D. Sanskrit University are to be regulated by such procedural instruction as issued by the Inter University Board as per the provisions contained in Article 6 of the Statutes. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the Inter University Board has already issued procedural instructions regarding sanction and payment of retirement benefits. Clause 25 deals with commutation of pension and clause 26 deals with application of the amendments made in Bihar Pension Rules. It is submitted that Rule 259 of the Bihar Pension Rules deals with grant of benefit of commutation of pension and by executive instruction issued by the State Government the benefits of restoration of commuted portion of pension have been allowed to the Government servants by the first instruction issued on 8.3.1983, after ten years and it was later revised and the benefit was made admissible after the expiry of 15 years of the grant of commuted pension, however, with the condition that the persons already availing the benefit; under the first instruction will not be affected by the subsequent instruction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that as per Clause 26 of the Procedurai Instructions issued by the Inter University Board the preceding Rules which include Rules relating to commutation of pension are to stand amended in the event of any charge(s) to the corresponding provision(s) in the Bihar Pension Rules and the Bihar Pension Rule is to be applied as amended from time to time in ail matters not covered by the preceding Rules so far procedure regarding grant/ payment of pension(s), gratuity is concerned. It is, thus, submitted that by change brought in the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules regarding restoration of commuted pension, the said provision ipso facto became applicable to the case of the employees/teachers of the University by virtue of Clause 26. 4. It is, thus, submitted that by change brought in the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules regarding restoration of commuted pension, the said provision ipso facto became applicable to the case of the employees/teachers of the University by virtue of Clause 26. 4. Learned counsel for the University has submitted that the procedural instruction issued by the Inter University Board is merely advisory and under Article 6(i) of the Statutes for grant of retirement benefits are to be regulated by such procedural instruction as may be issued by the University on the advice of the Inter University Board but ultimately the decision is to be taken by the University and not that merely because of the procedural instruction issued by the Inter University Board the employees/ teachers of the University will ipso facto become entitled for grant of benefit in the event of any change to the corresponding provision in the Bihar Pension Rules. 5. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the Chancellor, has submitted that till date the Statutes relating to commutation of pension has not been amended and the benefit of restoration of commuted portion of pension has not been extended to the employees/teachers of the University so far. It is submitted by him that the matter was referred to the Hon ble Chancellor by the University/Board for bringing changes in the matter of grant of benefit of restoration of commutation portion of pension under the Statutes and the same has been referred to the State Government for necessary approval in terms of proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 36 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 which is still awaited as it involved financial implications. It is, thus, submitted that the moment the State Government shall accord necessary approval the Statutes will be amended and the employees/ teachers of the University will become entitled for grant of the benefit of restoration of commuted portion of pension in accordance with law. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State although they are respondent nos. 5 to 7 in C.W.J.C. No. 9624/99 and respondent nos. 1, 7 and 8 in the second case, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 11527/96. 7. This Court does not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State although they are respondent nos. 5 to 7 in C.W.J.C. No. 9624/99 and respondent nos. 1, 7 and 8 in the second case, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 11527/96. 7. This Court does not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Article 6 of the Statutes for grant of retirement benefits clearly provides that sanction and payment of retirement benefits admissible under the said Statutes are to be regulated by such procedural instruction as may be issued by the University on the advice of the Inter University Board. Thus, plain reading of the said provision shows that any procedural instruction issued by the Inter University Board will have only the effect in the advisory capacity. It may be true that the Universities are to issue such procedural instruction on the advice of the Inter University Board under the said provision but this Court finds it difficult to hold that the advice of the inter University Board shall be binding upon the University for taking any decision and issuing any procedural instruction relating to grant of post retiral benefits. Clause 26 of the Procedural Instructions issued by the Board can also have no application until the University accepts the advice of the Board and amends its own Statutes for bringing any change in the corresponding provision as per the amendment made in the Bihar Pension Rules. The said provision itself provides that the preceding Rules will stand amended in the event of any change(s) to the corresponding provision(s) in the Bihar Pension Rules subject to the provisions of the retirement benefit Statute. Thus, unless the provision with respect to grant of benefit of restoration of commuted portion of pension is incorporated in the retirement benefit Statute any change made in the Bihar Pension Rules cannot be made applicable to the employees/teachers of the University. 8. However, learned Standing Counsel No. VII appearing for the State has fairly submitted that if the matter has been referred to the State Government by the Hon ble Chancellor the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law and keeping in view its financial implications involved in the matter. 9. 8. However, learned Standing Counsel No. VII appearing for the State has fairly submitted that if the matter has been referred to the State Government by the Hon ble Chancellor the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law and keeping in view its financial implications involved in the matter. 9. Accordingly, this Court directs the State Government and its officials to take final decision in the matter relating to grant of benefit of restoration of commuted portion of pension within three months from today. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the first case has submitted that the petitioner has raised other two grievances also, namely, (1) that excess deduction towards employers contribution of provident fund have been made which has resulted in deduction of the excess amount from the post retiral dues of the petitioner and (ii) although the pay of the petitioner has been revised in U.G.C. Scale with effect from 1.1.1986 but the benefit of revision of pay has not been correctly granted in the matter of revision of pension and gratuity. 11. Learned counsel for the University has submitted that the University wanted details of the account relating to deduction made towards the contributory provident fund from the petitioner but the same has not been supplied. With respect to fixation of pension and gratuity in the revised case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the University that the same has been granted to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. 12. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already filed representation before the University authority giving full details with respect to both his said grievances which have not been considered and disposed of till date. 13. As agreed, this Court directs the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 9624/99 to file fresh representation giving full details in support of his claim before the Vice- Chancellor of the Magadh University (respondent no. 2) with respect to the above two claims within four weeks which if filed within the said time shall be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order by respondent no. 2 within four weeks thereafter. Any further amount found payable shall also be paid to the petitioner within the said period. 14. As prayed by the learned Standing counsel No. VII let a copy of this judgment/order be supplied to him for necessary further action.