ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Heard the parties. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to pay salary/wages for the period, she was forced to remain out of service, because of the order of termination, as also salary for the period from re-instatement i.e. 5th October, 1998 onwards, including the current salary. 2. As the case can be disposed of on short points and the question of legality and propriety of the teachers of the college in question, including the petitioner, seems to be pending consideration before a Committee of Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal, a retired Judge of Supreme Court, it is not necessary to make unnecessary observations in the present case. 3. The petitioner, who was functioning as a Lecturer (History), Mandar College. Mandar (College - for short), a constituent college under the Ranchi University (University - for short), her services was terminated by the Univesitys order No. B/2220-22 dated 22nd June. 1995 on the ground of illegal appointment, but the petitioner and some others were subsequently reinstated vide University Notification, as contained in Memo No. 3314 dated 4th October, 1998 in the light of certain orders, passed by the High Court in CWJC No. 4021 of 1995. After reinstatement, the petitioner rejoined the post of Lecturer on 5th October. 1993 and claims to be working but her salary having not been paid, the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. Counsel for the petitioner gave much stress on the claim of the petitioner for salary for the period from 22nd June. 1995 to 5th October. 1998 i.e. the period the petitioner was forced to remain out of service. However, such claim of the petitioner is fit to be rejected as in the reinstatement order she was intimated vide Memo No. 3314 dated 4th October, 1998 that she will not be getting the arrears of salary. The said order is quoted hereunder: The syndicate at its meeting held on 25-26.9.98 resolved that Dr (Mrs) Usha Sharma Lecturer in History in Mandar College.
The said order is quoted hereunder: The syndicate at its meeting held on 25-26.9.98 resolved that Dr (Mrs) Usha Sharma Lecturer in History in Mandar College. Mandar whose name figures in the provisional list approved by the State Government vide letter No. 14/1/2/ 044/87-181-C dated 18-12-89 against the recommended post and in the report of the Three Man Steering Committee (Format-VIII) whose services were terminated vide Ranchi University Office order No. 13/2220-22 dated 22-6-1995 in utter defiance of the status quo granted by the Honble High Court on 21-6-1995 in C.W.J.C. No. 4021 of 1995 and re-affirmed in the final judgment on 31 -1 -1997 and in the light of the Chancellors Secretariat Letter No. RU-26/98-2141/G.S. (1) dated 21-7-1998 in the case of Sri Hari Shankar Prasad similarly placed re- instated with effect from 22-6-1995 i.e. the date on which her services were terminated subject to the condition that she would not be entitled to any arrears and the said absence from the Mandar College Mandar would be treated as extra ordinary leave without pay. This re-instatement is also subject to the condition that she will have to deposit in the University the total amount drawn by her as part of salary or remuneration from any institution, other than Mandar College, Mandar in three equal instalments. The payment of her salary would be subject to receipt of funds from the State Government by name. She is directed to report for her duty in the college. 5. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid letter, gave joining on 5th October, 1998 vide Annexure - F without any objection. 6. This apart, it will be evident that more than three years have passed but the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order dated 4th October, 1998. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the prayer of the petitioner for salary for the intervening period from 22nd June, 1995 to 5th October, 1998 is rejected. 8. So far as salary for the period from 5th October, 1998 onwards is concerned, the respondents have raised certain dispute relating to petitioners attending the classes on one or other day. 9. However, this Court is not inclined to deal with such a disputed question of fact in the present case.
8. So far as salary for the period from 5th October, 1998 onwards is concerned, the respondents have raised certain dispute relating to petitioners attending the classes on one or other day. 9. However, this Court is not inclined to deal with such a disputed question of fact in the present case. The college in question is one of the 40 colleges, made constituent during the 4th phase in respect of which the Supreme Court directed to hold an enquiry by Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court. The terms of reference has been shown in the case of State of Bihar and Ors, v. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh and Anr., reported in 2002(1) PLJR page 85. At paragraph No. 3 therein, certain observations have been made by the Supreme Court, which reads as follows : "During pendency of this appeal the concerned teachers and other employees who would be affected by the ultimate outcome of the proceedings before us will get their full salary along with admissible allowances and other benefits subject to any other order made by this Court. It is made clear that the services of the teaching and non-teaching staff shall not be disturbed during the pendency of the proceedings. The State Governments of Bihar and Jharkhand shall share the expenses of the inquiry to be conducted by Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal and his remuneration may be paid as may be fixed by him. Each State Government shall present all evidence and material pertaining to the inquiry before the learned Judge within three weeks after he fixes the date of inquiry. The inquiry shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably not later than six months." ORDER In view of the observations, made by the Supreme Court, even if the petitioners service is affected or her appointment is upheld by the Inquiry Committee of Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal, she is entitled for salary for the period, she has actually performed the duties. For the reasons aforesaid, the case is remitted with a direction to the Vice Chancellor. Ranchi University, to inquire from the college as to how many days the petitioner has attended the college and pay the admitted salary in her favour within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
For the reasons aforesaid, the case is remitted with a direction to the Vice Chancellor. Ranchi University, to inquire from the college as to how many days the petitioner has attended the college and pay the admitted salary in her favour within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Such payment will be subject to the decision, as may be taken on the recommendation of the committee of Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal. It is made clear that the Lecturers attend one or other class on the basis of the routine as being prepared by the Head of Departments or the Principal of the College. Such attendance of one or other class has nothing to do with the payment of salary if a teacher attends the college regularly and no complaint is made either by the Head of Departments or the Principal of the college, relating to non-attendance of one or other class. In the circumstances, if the Vice Chancellor wants to know the days in which the petitioner attended the college, may ask the Principal to report, who will submit a report on the basis of attendance sheet of teachers, if any maintained in the college. He will also take into account the usual holidays and summer vacation of the college, during which one or other teacher is not supposed to attend the college. If there is paucity of fund, the University may request the State of Jharkhand to release fund to ensure compliance of the Courts order. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.