Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1055 (PAT)

Bibi Kharunissha v. State of Bihar

2018-07-12

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University. 2. Initially, the writ petition was filed by the original writ petitioner, Md. Kalimuddin, for a direction to the respondents to grant pay scale of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant of the College in question. Subsequently, the original writ petitioner died and his widow and other heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place. Many facts stated in the writ petition are not relevant for deciding the present writ petition and as such in order to decide the present writ petition only relevant facts are enumerated hereinafter. 3. Initially, the original writ petitioner was appointed as Peon-cum-Clerk and subsequently he was upgraded as U.D. Assistant. There was some dispute with regard to the original petitioner and one Chandra Kant Thakur as to the post of Accountant. From memo no. 4662-64 dated 02.05.1983, it appears that the Principal of the college was communicated with the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, whereby the original petitioner was designated as Accountant of the College. The original petitioner was also granted pay scale of U.D. Assistant. From Annexure-12, it appears that the original petitioner was recognized as Accountant and request was made by the Principal of the College for release of fund for payment of difference of salary from March, 2010 to May, 2010 for payment of the original petitioner as Accountant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original petitioner was not granted the benefit of ACP/MACP. 5. Without going into the controversy whether the original petitioner was entitled to payment of ACP/MACP, in the present fact situation, the original petitioner was granted upgradation from Peon to Clerk and thereafter U.D. Assistant and Accountant, the issue is to be examined by the University and if ACP/MACP Rule permits upgradation of pay scale, the University may take final decision on the claim of the original petitioner for upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme. 6. So far as the payment of arrears treating the original petitioner as Accountant is concerned, the University has recognized him as Accountant and as such the University is required to ensure payment of difference of salary to the original petitioner as Accountant. 6. So far as the payment of arrears treating the original petitioner as Accountant is concerned, the University has recognized him as Accountant and as such the University is required to ensure payment of difference of salary to the original petitioner as Accountant. Monetary benefits in this regard must be paid to the successor petitioners within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. During the same period, the University will examine the claim for grant of ACP/MACP, if otherwise, admissible and ensure benefit of the same, if available, within the time as indicated hereinabove. 7. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.