Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1820 (RAJ)

Jai Narayan Vyas University v. M. K. Vyas

2018-09-04

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Respondents: Professors M.K. Vyas and S.S. Sharma filed a writ petition pleading that having worked in the faculty of law of appellant University they superannuated as Professors on 31.7.2012. The University was to pay salary to them as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission and for which on 12.10.2009 the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan had passed the necessary orders. The grievance was to the enhanced salary not being paid to them post implementation of the pay scale. They referred to the Government decision where 60% of the arrears of salary from 1.1.2006 to 30.9.2009 had to be deposited in the GPF account and the remainder to be paid. The prayer was that they should be paid salary as per the notification dated 27.10.2009. Since they had superannuated from service the gratuity, pension commutation and payment of pension be re-fixed with reference to the pay which they would have received in terms of the Government order dated 27.10.2009. 2. Notice was issued in the writ petition on 28.8.2012 and after being served the respondents filed a reply admitting the pleadings in the writ petition and yet the prayer was that the writ petition be dismissed. 3. We highlight that in the reply filed by the State of Rajasthan it pleaded having accorded financial sanction to the University. 4. A representative writ petition was filed by Retired Employees of Agriculture University which was registered as D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1914/2010. It was disposed of on 24.9.2010 with a direction that the respective University shall pay salary to the employees as per the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission. Since the State had agreed to foot the bill, the State would make available the funds. Interest on belated payment at the rate of 6% per annum would be paid. 5. Following said decision, on April 19, 2011 a learned Single Judge granted relief in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11927/2010 to one Dr.Bhagirath Mal Chitlangi. 6. In this backdrop when the writ petition filed by the petitioners came up for hearing on 28.1.2013 learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan and the University informed the Court that there was no dispute. Law declared by the learned Single Judge in the writ Petition filed by Dr.Bhagirath Mal Chitlangi had to be followed. The appellant sought review pleading that a wrong concession was made. The review has been dismissed on 27.2.2018. 7. Law declared by the learned Single Judge in the writ Petition filed by Dr.Bhagirath Mal Chitlangi had to be followed. The appellant sought review pleading that a wrong concession was made. The review has been dismissed on 27.2.2018. 7. We have asked learned counsel for the appellant repeatedly as to what is the case of the appellant, ignoring the decision of the Division Bench in the representative writ petition filed by the Retired Employees of Agriculture University as also Dr.Bhagirath Mal Chitlangi. Learned counsel states that as per the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 2009 while implementing the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, no interest was fixed on belated payments. 8. It is noted by us that recommendations of the Pay Commission which were accepted in 2009 resulting in salaries being enhanced with effect from 1.1.2006 were not implemented by the appellant till the year 2012 when the writ petitioners retired. They were forced to file the writ petition. Liability of the State to make available the funds to the University is not denied. Liability of the University to pay salary at enhanced rate with effect from 1.1.2006 is not denied. 9. Thus, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge following earlier decisions which granted benefit of interest to the serving and retired employees of Universities in Rajasthan. 10. The appeal is dismissed.