JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J. 1. This application is at the instance of an Officer of the respondent No. 1 and is filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant Non-Practising Allowances (henceforth shall be called 'NPA') to the petitioner w.e.f. April 23, 2002 and other consequential reliefs. By an order dated May 17, 2002, the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent university notified that the NPA was granted to the teachers and the officers possessing B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree of the West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences as per the rate approved by the State Government in terms of notification. 2. Thereafter, the officers and scientists of the West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences were entitled to get NPA in terms of the Order No. W.B.U.A.F.S./Estb/NPA-9/883 dated May 31, 2002. 3. Thereafter, the Government of West Bengal refused to grant NPA to the officers of the West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences by a Memo dated August 19, 2002. The respondent university thereafter withdrew the NPA granted in favour of the Veterinary Teachers and Officers. The teachers of the respondent university filed a writ case and the said writ petitioner was allowed on December 15, 2005 directing that the teachers of the respondent university would get NPA and the appeal preferred against the order dated December 15, 2005 by the State was dismissed. 4. By a notification dated May 22, 2008, the State of West Bengal allowed NPA in favour of the Veterinary Doctors who are not permitted to exercise option for private practice. By a notification dated September 26, 2008, the teachers of the respondent university were also allowed to draw the NPA but the officers of the respondent university were denied such benefits. Thereafter, the officers of the respondent university submitted a representation before the authority concerned for granting NPA but not considered. So, the writ petition has been preferred. 5. The respondent university and the State of West Bengal are contesting the writ petition. It is the contention of the respondent university that the application is barred by limitation and at best, the Government may be directed to pass necessary orders. The university is to proceed according to the decision of the Government only. 6. 5. The respondent university and the State of West Bengal are contesting the writ petition. It is the contention of the respondent university that the application is barred by limitation and at best, the Government may be directed to pass necessary orders. The university is to proceed according to the decision of the Government only. 6. The learned Advocate for the State has contended that the application is barred by limitation and the officers of the respondent university have been denied such benefits and so, the application should be dismissed. There is no violation of natural justice and the provisions of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the following questions are before this Bench for decision:-- i) Whether the action of the respondents in the matter of grant of NPA as complained in the writ petition is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and the provisions enshrined in Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India; and ii) Whether the State Government can discriminate the petitioner as an officer of the respondent university with the officers engaged in the Animal Resources Development Department in the matter of grant of the NPA. 8. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that admittedly, the petitioner is an officer of the respondent No. 1 in the capacity of the Deputy Registrar. He had been appointed to the said post on July 14, 2010 in the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000-18,300/- (unrevised) plus usual allowances under the Rules applicable from time to time. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is registered with the West Bengal Veterinary Council. 9. Reiterating the contentions as made in the writ petition, Mr. P.S. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended that five officers of the respondent No. 1 have been debarred from enjoying the benefit of NPA and in fact, four of them filed a representation to the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal appearing as Annexure P-19 at page No. 111. 10. He has submitted that by the West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences Act, 1995, the respondent No. 1 has been given entity of a University. 11. 10. He has submitted that by the West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences Act, 1995, the respondent No. 1 has been given entity of a University. 11. He has contended that according to Clause 106 of the West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences First Statutes, 1998, Pay, Dearness Allowance, House Rent allowance and other allowances as admissible to State Government servants shall ordinarily be applicable to the corresponding non-teaching, technical and non-technical staff of the University to whom the University Grants Commission/I. C. A. R. scale of pay are not applicable. The Dearness Allowance, House Rent allowance and other allowances admissible to Government servant shall be applicable to teaching staff to whom the University Grants Commission/I.C.A.R. scale of pay are not applicable. 12. Mr. Bhattacharya has also contended that according to Clause 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the Clause 106 is not applicable in any manner with regard to the alleged issues of the said petition and such submission of the respondents is not at all correct. 13. On the other, Mr. Amitavo Chaudhuri, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent university has contended that the present application being barred by limitation is not maintainable at all. The State Government had regretted its inability to extend the benefits of the NPA to the officers of the West Bengal University of Animal & Fishery Sciences by the Memo dated September 26, 2008 as appearing at page No. 105 of the writ petition. Since then, three years had already passed but no suit/case had been filed in the meantime and as such, the writ petition is barred by limitation. 14. He has also contended that the respondent university is to proceed according to the Government's decision and so, the State Government is appropriate to take a decision in the matter and if the Government passes appropriate orders, the university would be able to make payment. So, the Government may be directed to pass appropriate orders. 15. He has also contended that the teachers of the respondent and the officers are not of the same category and as such, they cannot be treated equally. 16. He has contended that the university having been situated outside the original jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition in the Original Side is not maintainable. 17. Mr. 15. He has also contended that the teachers of the respondent and the officers are not of the same category and as such, they cannot be treated equally. 16. He has contended that the university having been situated outside the original jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition in the Original Side is not maintainable. 17. Mr. Joytosh Majumder, learned Advocate appearing for the State, has contended that this application is not maintainable at all after the lapse of so many years while deciding the W.P. No. 239(W) of 2003 by the order dated December 15, 2005, this Hon'ble Court directed that the veterinary teachers should be given the benefit of the NPA being similarly circumstanced not only with the veterinary doctors serving the hospitals along with the teachers but also the teachers working in various other medical colleges under the State. 18. He has also contended that the said order had attained finality when the appeal by the State was dismissed. But, since then, the officers of the respondent university did not take any step and as such, there is an inordinate delay in preferring the writ petition and for that reason, the application should be dismissed. 19. Having due regard to the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates of both the sides, I find that the learned Advocate for the petitioner has stressed much upon the Clause 106 of the Statute of 1998 and he has contended that the petitioner having the minimum requisite qualification is entitled to get the NPA. 20. Referring to different annexures, Mr. Bhattacharya has drawn my attention to grant of the NPA to the officers of the category of the petitioner serving in different States and also under the Union of India. Thus, he has submitted that since the officers were entitled to get the NPA earlier, appropriate direction should be given for grant of the NPA. 21. With due respect to Mr. Bhattacharya, I am of the view that such contention of the writ petitioner cannot be accepted on the ground that it is the policy of the State or the Union of India to decide whether the NPA will be granted to the officers of the category of the petitioner. Since, it is a policy decision of the Government, I am of the view that no direction or writ of mandamus as prayed for can be granted. 22. Since, it is a policy decision of the Government, I am of the view that no direction or writ of mandamus as prayed for can be granted. 22. It is pertinent to mention that in the proceedings of 59th Meeting of the Executive Council held on February 20, 2012 of the respondent university, there was an observation seeking comments on the specific Agenda which included NPA to the officers of the University and it was resolved that the NPA of the officers of the university may be granted, if there is specific Government order. 23. As to merit of the application also I find that though, the officers were allowed NPA earlier, by an order dated November 1, 2002, the NPA sanctioned to the teachers and officers of the university who possess B.V.Sc. & A.H. degrees were withdrawn. So, the withdrawal of the NPA to the post of the petitioner had been done long time back on November 1, 2002. Since then, after lapse of so many years, it has become a settled position that the officers of the university who possess the B.V.Sc. & A.H. degrees will not be allowed to draw the NPAs w.e.f. November 1, 2002. So, after lapse of so many years say more than 10 years, if a settled position is upset by granting NPA to the officers of the respondent university, it will invite unnecessary unrest/caos in the administration of the respondent university. 24. It may be recalled herein that when the teachers of the respondent university possessing the minimum degrees for the NPA filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 239(W) of 2003, the same was allowed by the order of this Hon'ble Court dated December 15, 2005. 25. It may be noted herein also that the State preferred an appeal being F.M.A. No. 2508 of 2007 which was dismissed on February 10, 2009 for non-compliance of Court's direction. Even, a contempt application was filed for non-compliance of the direction of the order dated December 15, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge as recorded above. 26. Under the circumstances, implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge had been done, but, the officers of the respondent university possessing the minimum qualification for claiming the NPAs did not take any step in this regard and as such, their case was not considered. 26. Under the circumstances, implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge had been done, but, the officers of the respondent university possessing the minimum qualification for claiming the NPAs did not take any step in this regard and as such, their case was not considered. So, the consideration of the NPA in favour of the teachers of the respondent university, in my view, cannot be described as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 and natural justice. But, it remains a matter of policy of the Government, 27. In such a situation, after the lapse of three years w.e.f. November 1, 2002, I am of the view that prayer for consideration of grant of NPA to the officers of the respondent university would be barred by limitation and no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Since w.e.f. November 1, 2002, the officers of the respondent university having the requisite minimum qualification did not take any steps for grant of the NPA, I am of the view that the conduct of the officers of the respondent university in this regard amounts to waiver and acquiescence and for that reason, I am of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to move the said writ petition. So, there was inordinate delay in the matter. 28. Above all, the position of the teachers of the respondent university and the officers possessing the minimum degrees of B.V.Sc. & A.H. cannot be treated as similar. Officers may do private practice provided the service of the officers of the respondents is not hampered by such private practice. 29. As noted earlier, the Government had already withdrawn the NPA of the teachers and the officers of the respondent university long time back in November 2002. Such resolution as indicated in Annexure P-18 possibly arose when the officers of the respondent university renewed their prayer for the NPA. So, by such noting of the proceedings of the 59th Meeting of the Executive Council held on February 20, 2012, the petitioner will not be benefited in any way. 30. As regards jurisdiction, I find that the matter of the NPA was dealt with by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of West Bengal having the Office at Writers' Building, Kolkata. 30. As regards jurisdiction, I find that the matter of the NPA was dealt with by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of West Bengal having the Office at Writers' Building, Kolkata. Under such circumstances, even when a part of cause of action has arisen within the original jurisdiction of the Court, I am of the view that the writ petition in the Original Side is quite maintainable. 31. The questions are, thus, answered against the petitioner. 32. In the result, this application is devoid of merits and the application is, therefore, dismissed. 33. However, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities. Application dismissed