Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 615 (PAT)

Wasim Akhtar v. T. M. Bhagalpur University

2023-05-19

RAJIV ROY

body2023
RAJIV ROY, J.:–Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:— (i) to hold the action of the respondents concerned in not sanctioning pension of the petitioner as per his last month's actual pay being Rs. 27,310/- only as illegal; (ii) to direct the respondent authorities to fix the pension of the petitioner as per his last month's actual basic pay; (iii) to direct the respondents specially the authorities of the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University (henceforth for short ‘the University’) to ensure that the payment of all due benefits upon grant of financial Progressions under Assured Career Progression Scheme/Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme is/are granted; (iv) further, directing the authorities to ensure that the payments are made immediately; (v) to grant penal interest at least @ 12% per annum over petitioner's said unpaid claims; 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that right since his appointment till the retirement, his status remained as that of an Assistant and as such he is entitled to the said relief. 4. It is his further submission that the petitioner never came to know about the corrigendum dated 18.01.2018 and once the same has been brought on record by ‘the University’ by way of counter affidavit, he has filed I.A. No. 01/2020 with a prayer for quashing of the same. 5. His further submission is that some of the documents/correspondence of the respondents shows his status as an Assistant. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University (the respondent nos. 2 to 5) in which it has been stated that the petitioner was never appointed as an Assistant rather he was an Accounts Assistant which reflects from Annexure-5 to the writ petition i.e. the memo no. 944-946/84 dated 18.05.1984. 7. This Court deems it appropriate to incorporate the said memo dated 18.05.1984 issued by the respondent no. 2 to 5) in which it has been stated that the petitioner was never appointed as an Assistant rather he was an Accounts Assistant which reflects from Annexure-5 to the writ petition i.e. the memo no. 944-946/84 dated 18.05.1984. 7. This Court deems it appropriate to incorporate the said memo dated 18.05.1984 issued by the respondent no. 7, the Sundarwati Mahila College, Bhagalpur which read as follows:— ^^lqUnjorh efgyk egkfo|ky; Hkkxyiqj ¼fcgkj½ i= la[;k&844@84 fnukad 18@5@1984 dk;kZy; vkns'k&1984 p;u lfefr] lqUnjorh efgyk egkfo|ky;] Hkkxyiqj ds vuq'kalk ds vkèkkj ij Jh olhe v[rj dks ys[kk&lgkd ds in ij 730&15&820&20&980&nŒjksŒ&20&1080 ds osrueku esa fo'ofo|ky; dh LohÑfr ds izfrcUèk ds lkFk vLFkk;h :i ls fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA Jh v[rj dks mDr osrueku dk ,d bdjkjukek nsuk gksxk fd ;fn fo'ofo|ky; fcgkj ljdkj bl osrueku dh Lohd`fr ugha ns rks vfèkd Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k mUgsa okil djuk gksxkA iqu% bUgsa vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os vfoyEc viuk inHkkj xzg.k dj ysaA inHkkj xzg.k djus ds fufeÙk fdlh izdkj dk HkÙkk vkfn ns; ugha gksxkA gLrk{kj@& Hkkxyiqj&8-1-2001 ¼vfufUnrk eq[kthZ½ izèkkukpk;kZ fnukad&16-05-1984 lqUnjorh efgyk egkfo|ky; Hkkxyiqj Kki la[;k&944&946@84 fnukad&16@18&5&1984 izfrfyfi izsf"kr] 1- Jh olhe v[rj] Hkh[kuiqj] Hkkxyiqj 2- dqylfpo] Hkkxyiqj fo'ofo|ky; ds lwpukFkZ ,oa vuqeksnukFkZ 3- Jh ';ke lqUnj feJ] ys[kk lgk;d] lqUnjorh efgyk egkfo|ky; ds lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZA** 8. Further, the then Bhagalpur University vide memo no. B/24826 dated dated 29.07.1987 informed the concerned college (the respondent no.7) about confirmation of the petitioner’s service as Accounts Officer. The letter dated 29.07.1987 read as follows:— “BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY BHAGALPUR-812007 29th July, 1987 Dr M. Sowaid Registrar To The Principal, S.M. College, Bhagalpur Sub: Confirmation of the services of Md. Wasim Akhtar, Accounts Assistant, S.M. College, Bhagalpur. Madam, With reference to your letter No. 306/82 dated 22.07.87 I am to inform you that the Vice- Chancellor has been plead to order for confirmation of the services of Sri Wasim Akhtar, Accounts Assistant of your College, w.e.f. the date of his joining. Accordingly the services of Sri Wasim Akhtar, Accountants Assistant is confirmed w.e.f. the date of his joining i.e. 18.05.84. Yours faithfully, (M. Sowaid) Registrar.” 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5, ‘the University’ submits that inadvertently, in some correspondence, he was addressed as an “Assistant” and the petitioner grabbed the said opportunity to claim the said post which is on higher pedestal. Yours faithfully, (M. Sowaid) Registrar.” 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5, ‘the University’ submits that inadvertently, in some correspondence, he was addressed as an “Assistant” and the petitioner grabbed the said opportunity to claim the said post which is on higher pedestal. It is his submission that the petitioner was never given the said higher post. 10. ‘The University’ has now brought on record the letter dated 18.01.2018 and 13.01.2015 to show that orders have been passed in the matter clarifying the fact that the post of the petitioner be read as an Accounts Assistant. The said orders was/were never challenged by the petitioner and/or set aside, he is not entitled for relief. 11. This Court has taken note of the corrigendum vide memo no. B/2021-30 dated 18.01.2018 by which it has been clarified that the petitioner be considered as an Accounts Assistant instead of Assistant and for appreciation, the same is incorporated herein below:— “TILKA MAJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR- 812007 frydk ek¡>h Hkkxyiqj fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkxyiqj&812007 'kqf}&i= iwoZ esa fuxZr dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k&121@2015 ,oa dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k&35@15] Kki la[;k&ch@1939&69 fnukad 13-01-2015 esa vkaf'kd la'kksèku fd;k tkrk gSA la'kksèkuksijkUr eksŒ olhe v[rj inuke lgk;d ds txg ys[kk lgk;d iढ+k tk;A vkns'kkuqlkj gLrk{kj@& vLi"V dqylfpo Kkikad&ch@2021&30 fnukad 18-01-2018 izfrfyfi izsf"kr%& 1- mi;qZDr dehZ dks 2- izHkkjh izkpk;Z] ekjokM+h dkWyst] Hkkxyiqj] 3- foÙk inkfèkdkjh] 4- iz'kk[kk inkfèkdkjh] isa'ku@nkok@vads{k.k 5- dqyifr@izfrdqyifr ,oa dqylfpo ds futh lgk;d dks 6- lgk;d] dk;kZy; vkns'kj{kd] frydk ek¡>h Hkkxyiqj fo'ofo|ky;] Hkkxyiqj dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZA gLrk{kj@& vLi"V dqylfpoA** 12. Further, his letter of appointment dated 18.05.1984 issued by the respondent no. 7 the S.M. College Bhagalpur shows him as an Accounts Assistant. The confirmation order/letter dated 29.07.1987 of the Bhagalpur University too gave the status of Accounts Assistant to the petitioner. 13. There is no document on record to show that subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant. The petitioner has also not brought any document in the writ petition showing his promotion as an Assistant subsequently. 14. It is to be noted that this Court repeatedly asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to:— (i) whether the petitioner was ever appointed as an Assistant; (ii) whether he was ever promoted to the post of Assistant from Account Assistant to make such claim. 15. 14. It is to be noted that this Court repeatedly asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to:— (i) whether the petitioner was ever appointed as an Assistant; (ii) whether he was ever promoted to the post of Assistant from Account Assistant to make such claim. 15. The answer by the learned counsel for the petitioner to both the questions of this Court was in negative. He however reiterated that as certain documents of the respondents showed him as an Assistant, he is entitled for the relief. 16. It is to be noted that the dust has now been settled by ‘the University’ and the corrigendum dated 18.01.2018 has already been issued. 17. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition in August 2018 with prayer for grant of relief treating him as an Assistant but surreptitiously chose not to challenge the clarification dated 18.01.2018 which had already come into existence in January 2018 itself. 18. The alibi of the petitioner about no knowledge of the said letter dated 18.01.2018 is an afterthought and fit to be rejected. 19. This Court is convinced with the stand of ‘the University’ that the appointment of the petitioner was as an Accounts Assistant and he was never given the status of Assistant. The correspondence between the official in which inadvertently, he was shown as an Assistant cannot be a ground for him to claim the pay scale of the Assistant which is on a higher grade. 20. Consequently, he cannot claim fixation of his pension as an Assistant. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs he has sought for in the present writ petition. 21. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Ref : I.A. No. 1/2020 In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the I.A. No. 1 of 2020 too is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same as a separate cause of action, if he so wants.