Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1502 (PAT)

Bindhyachal Prasad v. State of Bihar

2015-12-21

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

body2015
ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. Pursuant to order dated 15.12.2015, the Pro-Vice Chancellor of Magadh University is present. 3. Forth supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. 4. Mr. K.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University submits that there was some misconception which resulted in him not signing the forms to be sent to the State Government as earlier a collective decision was taken by which it was resolved that the Registrar along with the Finance Officer and Finance Committee Member shall be signing the forms to be sent to the State Government. However, it is assured that he shall be signing the same in future promptly so that there is no delay in referring the matter to the State Government for verification. 5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court hopes and trusts that the assurance given to the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University shall be faithfully implemented by him in letter and spirit. 6. In terms of the earlier order of the Court, by which the State was directed to file an affidavit explaining as to why the order of the Court fixing time limit for Pay Verification Cell of the State Government to send recommendation had not been complied with, various figures have been given to show that the substantial matters have been verified and with regard to the remaining also it has been assured that the same would be done without delay. 7. Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel, who has assisted the Court, has given a compendium of various notifications and orders of the Court to show that the insistence of releasing of 45% of the arrears of revised pension by the State authorities may not be in tune with the earlier resolution of the State Government which has also been clarified by the Court. It is submitted that the initial resolution by which such arrears had to be paid in installments only mentions that the University had to forward to the Government details in a particular proforma and then the amount would be released and paid to them without there being any further stipulation that the said recommendation of the University shall be again subjected to scrutiny by a Pay Verification Cell of the State Government. It is submitted that once when applying the said standard, payment has been made in installments of 15% followed by another 40%, at the stage of the last installment of 45%, a new condition which in effect puts the clock back by taking the matter to square one, cannot be insisted by the State authorities. 8. Taking into consideration the previous orders of this Court in the present as well as other cases, the experience of the respondents carrying out the exercise in a short and fixed time frame, has not resulted in a very happy situation as retired persons are still facing harassment and not getting the remaining dues that too when most of them are advanced in age. 9. At this stage, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the validity of the Pay Verification Cell of the State Government has been upheld in a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 15.01.2015 in C.W.J.C. No. 7636 of 2014. Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel submits that the same related to the matter of teachers who were still in service whereas the present case relates to pensioners and thus they are two separate and distinct categories and further upholding of the validity of the Pay Verification Cell cannot be a ground not to give relief to the petitioner, may be by way of interim arrangement. 10. Having considered the matter in its entirety, the Court is inclined to pass orders by way of interim arrangement taking into account the greater public interest as well as the hardship faced by the pensioners including the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, let the University pay the remaining 45% of the arrears of pension to the pensioners who have not been paid the same within three weeks. However, the pensioner shall give an undertaking that the final decision rendered with regard to pay verification shall be binding on him in the following terms. If the Pay Verification Cell of the State Government differs from the recommendation sent by the University, it shall refer the matter back to the University with its objections and the University would give its comment based on its own records justifying the initial recommendation sent to the Pay Verification Cell and if required after hearing the pensioner or his representative. The final decision shall then be open to the concerned pensioner to challenge in accordance with law if it goes against him. Consequences of the issue upon attaining finality shall follow, including recovery, as the case may be. 12. Since this order is being passed in view of the peculiar situation of the petitioner and similarly situated employees having retired long back, being advanced in age and also them having been already paid 55% of the amount, the matter be listed on 8th February, 2016 so that the Court may take a final view with regard to the stand of the respondents relating to verification of the pay prior to release of the remaining 45%. The payments which shall be so made by the University, detailed calculation with regard to the same shall also be forwarded to the State Government within a week of making such payment. Though the present is a solitary case of one University but the Bench being assigned retirement benefit matters relating to all the Universities of Bihar and the Court having to repeatedly decide this issue on a regular basis, for the ends of justice and also to curtail unnecessary litigation further deems it appropriate to direct the State to allow the Universities to pay the remaining 45% without first insisting for pay verification in the aforementioned terms with regard to all the Universities of Bihar. This may be communicated by the State to the concerned Universities to be acted upon. 13. This Court also deems it equally fit and appropriate to direct the University concerned not to be slack in sending the details to the Pay Verification Cell in the prescribed proforma without delay so that the matter is not kept pending at the level of the University. 14. The appearance of Prof. Kriteshwar Prasad, Pro-Vice Chancellor of Magadh University stands dispensed with.