Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1498 (PAT)

Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-10-30

RAVI RANJAN

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the respondent- Veer Kunwar Singh University. 2. Through this writ application the petitioner seeks direction for payment of arrears of difference of salary from the month of December 1986 to February 2006 amounting to Rs. 6,08,590/- alongwith some arrear under different heads and also interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 3. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as lecturer in the Department of Sociology in G.B. College, Ramgarh, District Rohtas on 30.09.1985 by the then Governing Body and claims to have been continuously working since then. However, the issue of regularization and payment of teachers and non-teaching staff of 4th phase traveled up to the Apex Court and Justice S.C. Agrawala Commission was constituted under its order. The Commission submitted its report which has been accepted by the Supreme Court. The petitioner has admittedly been put under R-I category in the aforesaid report and there is no dispute regarding his payment etc. raised by any quarter including the State Government as his current salary is also being paid. However, the difference of salary had not been paid and that is the main relief which is being sought by the petitioner through this writ application. It has also been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in terminal stage of serious ailment and, thus, he requires his dues urgently. Some document has been appended as Annexure 11 to substantiate his claim that he is seriously ill and is confined to bed. 4. Counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondent-University. 5. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 6. It appears that the case of the respondent-University is that the State Government is not releasing the necessary fund for payment of the arrears of difference of salary of the petitioner. At the same time, the State Government has come up with a stand specially mentioning in paragraph 9 that there is no paucity of fund with the University for making payment of arrears of salary to its employees, however, no details have been given in the counter affidavit by the State to show that it has released the fund for payment of arrears of difference of salary of the petitioner. 7. 7. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State appears to be rather general in nature and not specific one. 8. It has categorically been stated by learned counsel for the respondent-University at the time of hearing that the amount payable to the petitioner has already been calculated and pre-audited by the State Finance Auditor and a requisition has been sent to the State Government to release the fund for payment of arrears of difference of salary of the petitioner on yearly basis but it is yet to be released, however, no specific averment has been made in the counter affidavit on this issue. 9. In above view of the matter, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent-University to calculate the dues of the petitioner in accordance with law and get it pre-audited through the State Finance Auditor and send the necessary requisition to the State Government with six weeks from today if already not been done as this order has been passed in the presence of learned counsel for the State and the respondent-University. If the calculation has already been pre-audited by the State Finance Auditor there would be no occasion for the State not to release the fund with respect to the petitioner, thus, the State would be required to release the necessary fund within four weeks thereafter. The University would be required to disburse the payment in favour of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 10. So far the interest part is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-University has also placed reliance upon the order dated 14.10.2011 passed in L.P.A. No. 598 of 2011 (The Vice Chancellor and others Vs. Radhe Shyam Singh and others) and other analogous matters. It is submitted that the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals were filed with respect to the teaching staff of the same college and the Division Bench of this Court has not allowed any interest upon it on consideration that the writ petitioners were claiming interest since 1985 when the particular University was not even in existence, thus, they were not paid any interest in view of the fact that the regularization of the services of the writ petitioners was much later in 2006. 11. 11. However, in my opinion, the issue as to why the interest from Ist of July, 2007, i.e., after the regularization of the services of the petitioner should not be paid was neither raised nor was considered in the aforesaid case. After regularization a duty was cast upon the respondent-University to pay the dues immediately after confirmation of the services of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been considered in the subsequent order dated 13.07.2012 passed by another Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 32 of 2011. The Division Bench has opinioned that until 19th of October, 2006 the situation being fluid, in view of the fact that final decision could only be taken after submission of the report of the Justice S.C. Agrawala Commission and its acceptance by the Apex Court. Till then the University was not liable to pay arrears of salary, however, once the services of the petitioner were confirmed then the interest at the rate of 12% imposed by the Single Bench was held to be justified in view of the fact that there was no justification in not paying the dues since 1st of October, 2007 till 31st of October, 2010 when the dues of the concerned teacher was ultimately paid by the authority concerned. Thus, I would have no difficulty in following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench and I hereby hold that the petitioner would also be entitled for simple interest at the rate of 12% from Ist of July, 2007 till payment of the dues of the petitioner. 12. In view of the critical condition of the petitioner it is expected that the authorities will complete the whole exercise within the aforesaid period and pay the entire dues within four months, failing which the University shall be liable to pay enhanced simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.