Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1468 (PAT)

Gita Sharan Prasad v. State of Bihar

2012-10-16

RAVI RANJAN

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State, the Magadh University and respondent no.6. 2. Through this writ application, the petitioner seeks direction for release of salary from month of March, 2009 onwards, which has been stopped without any rhyme or reason. 3. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Lecturer in Political Science in Ram Krishna Dwarika College, Lohia Nagar, Patna on 17.1.1983. The matter of regularization of 4th Phase traveled up to the Apex Court and the Apex Court had constituted Justice Agrawala Commission for one time settlement of the issues which had submitted its report and the report has been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been placed in ‘R-I’ category and as such, the State as well as University are duty bound to regularize his service and pay salary to him. It is also contended that after the report of Agrawala Commission, the petitioner was being paid salary by the Magadh University, but suddenly, the salary has been stopped without assigning any reason and the petitioner has not received any thing since March, 2009. 4. Counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the Magadh University despite the direction given. 5. However, at least the State has filed counter affidavit, but that is also very confusing. Despite the categorical claim by the petitioner in paragraph-3 of the writ application that he has been put by the Justice Agrawala Commission in ‘R-I’ category and though no specific denial of that has been made, a stand has been taken in paragraph-9 that the petitioner’s case is on similar footing to that of one Krishna Nand Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar, whose S.L.P. No.12591 of 2010, is pending before the Apex Court. However, when confronted, learned counsel for the State has not been able to show or demonstrate before this court regarding the similarity between the petitioner’s case and the aforesaid Krishna Nand Yadav’s case rather learned counsel for the Magadh University as well as the respondent no.6 have jointly submitted that there is no similarity between the aforementioned cases as the petitioner has been recommended under the ‘R-I’ category and the State Government has already taken a decision to regularize the services of the teachers who have been put under R-I category by Justice Agrawala Commission. 6. 6. So far the counter affidavit of State is concerned, while making a statement in paragraph-11, it appears, that the State has completely forgotten its decision as contained in File No.15/B dated 15th September, 2010, produced at the time of hearing, clearly indicating in Sub Paragraph-1 of Paragraph-6 that it is not obliged to pay salary and pension etc. to the teachers and non-teaching staff who have been put by Justice S.C. Agrawala Commission in ‘R-II’ and N.R. Category which necessarily implies that it is ready to pay salary of ‘S’ and ‘R-I’ category. 7. A copy of the show cause submitted by the State in M.J.C. No.758 of 2011 appended by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.9193 of 2010 as Annexure-4 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in that case has also been produced before this Court for consideration. 8. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid show cause are being re-produced as under : “11. That it is submitted that the matter was again reexamined and it was found from the records available in the department that the petitioner no.8 is working on R-I category of post as per the Agrawal Commission Report. 12. That it is stated that as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the report of Justice Agrawal Commission has been accepted and the petitioner no.8 also become entitled for payment of salary s ince his name figures in R-1 category. The recommendation of the Agrawal Commission is that all those teachers who come under R-1 category are entitled for the post and salary. 13. That it is stated that the government on 30 May 2011 has released the fund for payment of those teachers who comes under R-1 category of Justice Agrawal Commission Report.” 9. From aforesaid averments made on behalf of the State, it can be safely construed that the State is ready to pay salary and pension of the teaching and non-teaching staffs who have been put in Category-S and Category R-I. Not only that, it has also been pointed out at the bar that in its contempt case bearing M.J.C. No.758 of 2011 the aforesaid show cause was filed on behalf of opposite party nos.9 and 10 i.e. the Secretary, Department of Education and the Director, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna the affidavit, which was duly sworn by the Director himself. The State respondents have clearly come out with a stand in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 that the Government on 30th May, 2011 had released the fund for payment of those teachers, who come under R-I Category of Justice Agrawala Commission report. It is further contended that similar stand has been taken by the State in many other cases also. 10. That being the situation, the State is not at all justified in questioning the report of Commission itself and in backing out from its stand that it will pay salary and pension etc. to all the teachers, who have been put under R-I Category by Justice Agrawal Commission. 11. I have already noticed that there has been no denial by the State respondents of the stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph no.3 that he has been put under R-I Category by the Justice S.C. Agrawala Commission. The relevant extract of the report (Annexure-3A) has also been appended by him as Annexure-4 in support of his claim. 12. It has been stated that in I.A. No.4175 of 2010 that out of six persons working, one Jainandan Prasad Yadav, Head of the Department of Political Science, Ram Krishna Dwarika College, Lohianagar has already died on 19th April, 2010 and thus, that post has already fallen vacant. 13. Be that as it may, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner has been placed under the R-I category by Justice S.C. Agrawala Commission in its report recommending for his absorption/regularization and the stand taken by the State Government in several cases including the contempt petition bearing M.J.C. No.758 of 2011 and its decision dated 15.9.2010, as discussed above, that the State Government would pay salary and pension of the teachers, who have been placed under R-I category by the Justice S.C. Agrawala Commission, this writ application has to succeed. 14. As a result, the respondent University is directed to regularize the services of the petitioner and calculate his arrears of salary and send requisition for release of necessary fund to the State Government within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the State Authority would be required to release necessary fund within further four weeks. Thereafter, the State Authority would be required to release necessary fund within further four weeks. The entire amount, which is due from March, 2009 should be paid to the petitioner immediately after release of the fund preferably within two weeks on receipt of the fund by the University after its release by the State Government failing which the petitioner would also be entitled for simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be calculated from the date the concerned amount became due till its final payment. 15. Before parting with the case it is also clarified that Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6, has clearly stated that there is no conflict between the interest of the respondent no.6 and petitioner inasmuch as the respondent no.6 has been recommended by the Justice S.C. Agrawala Commission under Category-S, whereas the petitioner has been recommended under the Category R-I. However, salary and pension etc. for both categories are to be paid by the University as well as the State.