Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1122 (JHR)

Chandra Kumar Tripathy v. Vinoba Bhave University

2011-12-19

D.N.PATEL

body2011
ORDER 1.The present writ petition has been preferred mainly challenging the order passed by th Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh dated 19th January, 2004 at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, whereby, the petitioner has been denied salary for the period running from 1st September, 2002 to 31st August, 2003. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was serving with the Government Sanskrit College, initially in the State of Bihar and upon bifurcation in the State of Jharkhand. As per the respondents, it was in dispute whether the petitioner should be treated as government employee or an employee of the University or in the University services. This clarification is required, as per the respondents, because of the fact that the State Government employees are to retire upon reaching the age of 58 years whereas the employees, who are in the University services, are going to retire upon reaching the age of 60 years. Thus, for same type of cadre, there will be two types of Lecturer, one who will retire at the age of 58 years and the other, who will retire at the age of 60 years. 3. As per the petitioner, he was in the Government Sanskrit College, which was owned, managed and controlled by the respondent-University and is also an affiliated college to Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and, therefore, he is in the University services and, thus, his age of retirement will be 60 years. The petitioner continued to work even after attaining the age of 58 years, as a Lecturer and he was also In-charge Principal of the Government Sanskrit College for 59th year's service and salary has already been paid to the petitioner by the State Government, but, for the salary from 1st September, 2002 to 31st August, 2003 the dispute has arisen. The respondents have not paid the salary and, therefore, the 2.earlier writ petition was preferred by the petitioner being W.P.(S) No. 5796 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 2nd December, 2003, wherein, direction was given to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The said representation has been decided by the respondents vide order dated 19th January, 2004 at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition. 4. The said representation has been decided by the respondents vide order dated 19th January, 2004 at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation nor any fraud has been played by him and with all full knowledge of the respondents, the petitioner has worked as a Lecturer and was also made In-charge Principal of the Government Sanskrit College for the two years, in question, i.e. after 58 years till he reached the age of 60 years i.e. up to 31st August, 2003. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact two classes, created for the same work of Lecturer, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, namely, a class of Lecturers who are working in Government College and another class of Lecturers, who are working in a non-governmental college. For first type of class, the age of retirement will be 58 years whereas for another class, the age of retirement will be 60 years. In fact, all the Lecturers are doing the same job in the college and, thus, there cannot be a different age of retirement. There is no reasonable nexus with the object, sought to be achieved. Like persons must be treated alike. The discrimination made by the respondents tantamounts to violation of the right of equality of the petitioner, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that looking to Annexure 2 and 3 to the memo of petition, it would be evident that with full knowledge of the respondent-University as well as with the full knowledge of the respondent-State, the petitioner was working as a Lecturer and was also made In-charge Principal of the Government Sanskrit College. There was an order of stay of the payment of salary from September, 2002, but, there was no stay for continuation of the work by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has worked up to the age of 60 years with full knowledge of the respondents. On the contrary, looking to Annexure 3 it was in dispute whether the petitioner should retire at the age of 58 years or at the age of 60 years. Several documents were demanded by the Government, looking to Annexure 2 to the memo of petition. 6. On the contrary, looking to Annexure 3 it was in dispute whether the petitioner should retire at the age of 58 years or at the age of 60 years. Several documents were demanded by the Government, looking to Annexure 2 to the memo of petition. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neve any decision was taken by the respondents that the petitioner must go out of service at the age of 58 years. Several details were demanded vide order at Annexure 2 to the memo of petition. Moreover, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the order at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition, the petitioner has retired on 22nd August, 2003, upon attaining the age of 60 years. Thus, even as per the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, the fact that the petitioner was working as a Lecturer and was also made In-charge Principal of the Government Sanskrit College, was very much within the knowledge of the respondent-University. There is, thus, no suppression of any material fact on the part of the petitioner nor there is any misrepresentation nor any fraud has been played by the petitioner for continuation of his services up to the age of 60 years. Upon filing of the earlier writ petitioner, as a direction was given to the respondents to take a decision about the claim of the present petitioner, for the first time it was decided on 19th January, 2004 that the petitioner ought to have retired at the age of 58 year4s as per the Government Rules, treating the petitioner as a government employee and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to salary for his 60th year of service i.e. from 1st September, 2002 to 31st August, 2003 and, thus, the order of recovery, which is made for withdrawal of salary of the earlier year i.e. for his 59th year of service also deserves to be quashed and set aside, as the petitioner has worked openly, with full knowledge of the respondent-University as well as the State Government and never any order has been passed by the respondents that the petitioner's age of retirement is 58 years, because there was a dispute going on whether the petitioner should be treated as a government employee or in the University services. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Narasimha Sundram, as reported in A.I.R. 1994 SC 599, as well as a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kaushalya v. The State of Bihar, as reported in 2000(1) PLJR 505 . 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made it clear that the petitioner is not demanding the pension on the basis of his retirement at the age of 60 years. His length of service may be kept at the age of 58 years calculation, but, he is insisting that as he has worked with full knowledge 4.of the respondents, salary for the said period should be paid to him. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner has unauthorizedly worked for two years, beyond his age of superannuation and, therefore, he is not entitled to any salary. Moreover, salary for one year already having been paid to the petitioner, the order of recovery has also been padded by the respondents, looking to paragraph no.9(ii) of the order at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has relied upon the decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Kishun v. Union of India & ors., as reported in (1997) 9 SCC 239 as well as a decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & ors. v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, as reported in JT 2008(12) SC 564. On the basis of the aforesaid two decisions, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that even though the petitioner has worked for his 59th and 60th years of service, he is not entitled to salary and whatever has been paid to the petitioner for the additional year i.e. 59th year, is legally recoverable from the petitioner and, thus, no error has been committed by the respondents in passing the impugned order dated 19th January, 2004 at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition and, thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that the petitioner was in the services of the Government Sanskrit College, which was owned, managed and controlled by th Government and, therefore, he was in government service and, as such, petitioner's age of retirement being 58 years, he was entitled to continue in service only up to 31st August, 2001 and, therefore, he is not entitled to any salary for th rest two years for which he has rendered the services. Learned counsel for the respondent-University adopts the arguments, canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent-State. 10. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, dated 19th January, 2004, which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i)The present petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (Bihar Education Service Grade-II) at Government Sanskrit College, Ranchi by the Education Department of the Government of Bihar, 5.but, the fact remains that he was a Lecturer appointed, having been appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Sanskrit College, Ranchi (now in the State of Jharkhand). (ii)It appears from the arguments, canvassed by both the sides that there are two types of Lecturers: (i) Those who are working in the Government College and (ii) Those who are working on the same post i.e. as a Lecturer, but, in the non-governmental colleges. Both these types of colleges are affiliated to Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and, therefore, one class of Lecturers will retire upon attaining the age of 58 years where another class of Lecturers will retire upon attaining the age of 60 years. It is submitted by the counsel for both the sides that even on today there are two types of Lecturers and even on today there is some enhancement of the age of retirement, but, still there are difference of two years of retirement age i.e. in a government college 60 years whereas in non-governmental college it is 62 years and all of them are claiming their age of retirement as 65 years, as per the UGC scheme. (iii)Be that as it may, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, this dispute was continuing even on 31st August, 2001 when the petitioner attained the age of 58 years. (iv)It appears from Annexure 2 to the memo of petition that a letter was issued by the Vice Chancellor of Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh on 16th September, 2002 to the effect that salary of the present petitioner shall remain stayed till further orders. Thus, the petitioner worked from 1st September, 2002 onwards and even vide order at Annexure 2, he was allowed to perform the duties as a Lecturer, but, his salary was stayed. Never there was a direction by the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, that the petitioner was not to perform the duties as a Lecturer. (v)It further appears from Annexure 2 that the order of the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, was passed upon some directions, given by the State Government. Looking to the enclosure of the letter of the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, it appears that the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi had called for some details, 6.which has a direct bearing with the age of retirement of the petitioner. Thus, from the letter at Annexure 2 of the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh as well as from the enclosure of the letter of the Government, it appears that the whole issue regarding the age of retirement of the petitioner was in dispute. (vi)It further appears from the facts of the case that during this disputed period, certain details were called for and it was yet to be decided by the respondent-State authorities or by the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh as to whether the age of retirement of the petitioner will be 58 years or 60 years, because there are two types of Lecturers, working in the college, affiliated to Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. (vii)The aforesaid conclusion is also fortified by the letter at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition of the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, which is dated 1st September, 2003. (vii)The aforesaid conclusion is also fortified by the letter at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition of the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, which is dated 1st September, 2003. By this letter, it has been stated that the petitioner, who is working as In-charge Principal of Government Sanskrit College, Ranchi, has attained the age of 60 years and he has retired on 22nd August, 2003, but, his date of retirement will be 31st August, 2003 and he will give the charge to Senior Professor Sri Onkar Nath Mishra. Copy of this letter was also sent to the Director, Higher Eduction, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and, as such, from this Annexure 3 also it appears that there was no misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact by the petitioner nor any fraud has been played by the petitioner for his continuation in service. Moreover, the retirement age of the petitioner was in dispute, because some Professors are to retire at the age of 58 years and rest of the Professors were to retire at the age of 60 years. Never any final decision was taken either by the State authorities or by the authorities of Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, that the petitioner is to retire at the age of 58 years, treating him as a government employee. From petitioner's side, prayer was consistently made that he should be made to retire at the age of 60 years. Even in the earlier writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 5796 of 2003, similar was the prayer and as there was no final decision 7.taken by the respondents, direction was given by this Court while finally disposing of the earlier writ petition, filed by the petitioner, to consider the claim of the petitioner and a direction was given to the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, to pass an appropriate order. The said order is at Annexure 4 to the memo of petition, which reads as under: “Heard the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he retired on 31.8.2003 but the salary for the period from 1.9.2002 to 31.8.2003 has not been paid. It appears from Annexure-2 that payment of salary for the aforesaid period was stayed by the order of Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he retired on 31.8.2003 but the salary for the period from 1.9.2002 to 31.8.2003 has not been paid. It appears from Annexure-2 that payment of salary for the aforesaid period was stayed by the order of Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University. In the facts of the case, I dispose of this writ application with a direction to Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order along with representation that may be filed by the petitioner.” (viii)It appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of this Court, now the respondents have decided the age of retirement of the petitioner, which was in the billingnant stage and an order at Annexure 5 has been passed dated 19th January, 2004, whereby, the petitioner's age of retirement is now finalized as 58 years and, therefore, he ought to have retired on 31ast August, 2001 and, therefore, the salary paid to the petitioner for his 59th year of service is required to be recovered as per paragraph no. 9(ii) of the impugned order at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition. (ix)Thus, it appears from the facts of the case that with full knowledge of the respondents, the petitioner has worked as a Lecturer and was also In-charge Principal of the Government Sanskrit College at Ranchi. Never any fraud was played by the petitioner nor there was suppression of any material fact, whatsoever. Two types of Lecturers were there with the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh; one lot of Lecturers is to retire at the age of 58 years whereas another lot of Lecturers is to retire at the age of 60 years. It is an admitted fact by both the parties that the petitioner has 8.actually worked up to 31st August, 2003 and, therefore, it appears that without any fraud, the petitioner has rendered his services and, therefore, he is entitled to salary from 1st September, 2002 to 31st August, 2003. (x)Learned counsel for the respondent-State has relied upon paragraph no.3 of the decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Kishun v. Union of India & ors., as reported in (1997) 9 SCC 239 . (x)Learned counsel for the respondent-State has relied upon paragraph no.3 of the decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Kishun v. Union of India & ors., as reported in (1997) 9 SCC 239 . Looking to the aforesaid paragraph, it appears that there was some irregularity on the part of the person concerned in the establishment and, therefore, the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was continued in the services from June, 1991 to June, 1994 and, therefore, it was held that he was not entitled to salary. Looking to the facts of the present case it appears that there are two types of Lecturers, as stated herein above. It was in dispute whether the petitioner will retire at the age of 58 years or at the age of 60 years. Even there was an earlier writ petition, preferred by the petitioner and as there was no decision taken by the respondents, direction was given to take a decision and pursuant to the same, the impugned order has been passed in the month of January, 2004. Thus, there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner or on the part of the respondents. But, looking to two types of Lecturers in the colleges, affiliated to Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, there were two prevailing age of retirement. Even on today, there is a difference of two years of the age of retirement in the government colleges and in the non-governmental colleges, affiliated to Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and still there is dispute regarding the fact that all the Lecturers are claiming the age of superannuation at the age of 65 years, on the basis of University Grant Commission's recommendations. Thus, the petitioner is not at all at fault and without any misrepresentation and without suppression of any material facts, with full knowledge and with open eyes of all the respondents, the petitioner continued as a Lecturer even after 31st August, 2001 (58 years of age of the petitioner) and especially looking to Annexure 2 it appears that some details were still required by the Government for fixing the age of superannuation of the petitioner, looking to the letter of the Human Resources 9.Development Department of the State of Jharkhand. Moreover, looking to Annexure 3, which is a letter of the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, the retirement of the petitioner will be with effect from 31st August, 2003. These facts make the present case different from the case, which is cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-State. (xi)Learned counsel for he respondent-State has further relied upon a decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & ors. v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad, as reported in JT 2008(12) SC 564, especially paragraph nos. 14 and 15 thereof. Looking to the dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and looking to the dispute before this Court, there is quite difference between the two, over and above the facts, which have already been stated herein above. In the aforesaid decided case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the concerned employee of the State of Bihar was claiming pensionable job and gratuity up to the extended years of superannuation whereas in the facts of the present case, it is made clearer by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is claiming salary for the work, having been done by him and nothing more than that. The pension, gratuity etc. may be calculated keeping in mind the length of service, rendered by the petitioner up to age of 58 years i.e. up to 31st August, 2001. In view of these facts of the present case, the aforesaid decision is not helpful to the respondent-State. (xii)Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Narasimha Sundram, as reported in A.I.R. 1994 SC 599, paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 thereof reads as under: “3. So far the question of payment of arrears of salary is concerned, we do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent can be refused his emoluments for the period in question as no proceedings were ever initiated for inquiry as to the alleged fraud played by the respondent on the department. It is not denied that the respondent worked till 30th September, 1989 and in that view we confirm that part of the impugned judgment which refers to the salary. The respondent should 10.be paid his arrears of salary, if not already paid, within two months from today. 4. It is not denied that the respondent worked till 30th September, 1989 and in that view we confirm that part of the impugned judgment which refers to the salary. The respondent should 10.be paid his arrears of salary, if not already paid, within two months from today. 4. The second relief related to the payment of post-retiral benefits. Mr. M.L. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal has contended that several criminal proceedings were under investigation against the respondent and serious charges had been levelled against him. It is further said that in view of the provisions of Rule 43(b) read with Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, the appellants-State is entitled to reduce the amount or deny pension to the respondent. The records before us indicate that certain proceedings under Rule 43(b) read with Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules had been started against the respondent and an order was passed withholding fifty percent of his pension. Mr. A.K.Sen, learned senior counsel for the respondent has contended that in view of the aforesaid order the appellant-State must be directed to pay fifty per cent of the pension without delay. The stand of the appellant-State is that there are further proceedings initiated against the respondent under the Bihar Pension Rules for reduction of the pension. He has relied upon the statements made in the two affidavits filed in this case to prove the same. It is, therefore, suggested that the appellant-State should not be forced to pay to the respondent fifty per cent of the pension immediately and should be allowed to withhold the same temporarily until final orders are passed in the pending proceedings. The affidavit referred to by the learned counsel indicates that further proceedings under the Bihar Pension Rules had been initiated some time back and a show cause was also filed by the respondent. It is, therefore, desirable that whatever proceedings have been started against the respondent are disposed of finally expeditiously. 5. The affidavit referred to by the learned counsel indicates that further proceedings under the Bihar Pension Rules had been initiated some time back and a show cause was also filed by the respondent. It is, therefore, desirable that whatever proceedings have been started against the respondent are disposed of finally expeditiously. 5. In the circumstances, we modify the directions of the High Court in the impugned judgment relating to the payment of post-retiral benefits by permitting the appellant-State to delay the payment of pension for some time and 11.dispose of the pending proceedings under the Bihar Pension Rules as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from today and we further direct that in accordance with the final orders which are passed in the proceedings, the appellant-State shall immediately pay whatever benefits the respondent is found entitled to. We also make it clear that the respondent shall be entitled to challenge in accordance with law any order which is passed against him hereafter under the Rules. The appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.” In view of the aforesaid decisions, the respondents are not entitled to recover the amount, which has already been paid to the petitioner for the services, rendered by the petitioner. The salary paid to the petitioner from 1st September, 2001 to 31st August, 2002 cannot be recovered by the respondents, because the petitioner has worked with all full knowledge of the respondents and there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner nor there is any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, as stated herein above. (xiii)Learned counsel for the petitioner has also rightly relied upon the decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Kaushalya v. The State of Bihar, as reported in 2000(1) PLJR 505 , paragraph nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 thereof read as under: “10.In the case of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & others, reported in (1990)3 S.C.C. 682 the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court while dealing with the meaning and effect of the 'decision per incuriam' held that non-reference to an earlier larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court will make subsequent decision of the Supreme Court per incuriam if the ratio of the earlier decision is in conflict with it. 11. 11. It is well settled that no penalty can be imposed without at least giving an opportunity to the concerned employee to defend himself. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana & others, reported in 1995 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 18 in which the benefit of 12.higher pay scale was given to the appellant, but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant could not be held to be at fault, directed that the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. This direction was given on the premise that it was not on account of any mis-representation by the appellant that the said benefit was given to him. 12. Accordingly this Court is of the view that earlier larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Narasimha Sundram (supra) is binding and in view of the law settled by the said decision, the recovery of the alleged excess payment made to the employee concerned for the services rendered by them beyond the actual date of superannuation without any mis-representation of manipulation made by them is not permissible. 13. In the present case, it is not alleged that the petitioners or the deceased employee were aware of their actual date of retirement and still they continued to work. Petitioners in the first four writ petitions are menial staff of the Corporation and in C.W.J.C. No. 9432 of 1998 the petitioner is widow of the deceased employee. Thus, it has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they cannot be held responsible for continuance beyond the actual date of superannuation as it is not alleged that they continued in service beyond the age of superannuation on account of any misrepresentation or manipulation made by them.” In the light of the aforesaid decision also, the order of recovery of the salary paid to the petitioner in paragraph no.9(ii) of the impugned order at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition is not sustainable. (xiv)As this Court is deciding this case on the basis of the facts, stated herein above, the question is left open as to whether there can be two classes of Lecturers in the colleges, affiliated to Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, having different dates of retirement. (xiv)As this Court is deciding this case on the basis of the facts, stated herein above, the question is left open as to whether there can be two classes of Lecturers in the colleges, affiliated to Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, having different dates of retirement. As this Court is allowing this writ petition on another issue, this issue 13.is left open to be decided. Thus, the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner based upon classification test and whether like persons are treated differently, in the present case, is not being decided. As the petitioner has worked with full knowledge of the respondent and as the age of retirement of the petitioner was in dispute, which was concluded upon the direction given by this Court vide order dated 2nd December, 2003 in W.P.(S) No. 5796 of 2003 and during that time as the petitioner has already worked for the period, running from 1st September, 2001 to 31st August, 2003, the petitioner is entitled to salary for both these two years. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, dated 19th January, 2004 at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition. Consequent thereto, the petitioner will be paid salary in accordance with law. The petitioner is also entitled to salary for the period running from 1st September, 2002 to 31st August, 2003, which will be calculated within a period of four weeks by the respondent-University and, thereafter, necessary papers will be sent to the State Government, which will release the grant for the amount, as stated by the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh within a further period of eight weeks after receiving the proposal from the respondent-University and thereafter, within a further period of four weeks, the respondent-University will make the actual payment of salary to the petitioner. 12. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of in view of the aforesaid observations/directions.