IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.3880 of 2010
DR.RAGHUPATI SAHAI BILGRAMI
Versus
THE V.C.,BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR,BIHAR UNIVERSITY & ORS
-----------
06 04.10.2010 The arbitrary manner in which University authorities
conduct themselves and force upon its employees litigation leading
to wastage of Court’s time in clerical matter is writ large by this
case.
Petitioner, who had superannuated in July 2009, filed
this writ petition raising substantial claims of pre and post retiral
dues. This was so because of reasons, which this Court cannot
discuss. The matter was not being settled at the University level,
even though it was matter of pure and simple accounting. Once the
matter came to this Court, finding no way out, University admitted
and agreed to pay over Rs.12 lacs to the petitioner on account of pre
and post retiral dues. Petitioner was given an opportunity by this
Court to represent against the correctness of the payment as
University had not disclosed the basis for this calculation. The
University disclosed some basis which the petitioner objected. The
objection as per this Court’s order was dealt and an order was
passed by the Finance Officer on 01.10.2010, which is Annexure-D
to the third supplementary counter affidavit of the University,
without going into details.
One must notice the contention of University, as
mentioned in paragraph-2 of the order of the Finance Officer, that
depicts some serious disease which pervades the Finance Section of
-2-
the University. The order states that pursuant to decision taken in
1998 all teachers, who had obtained Ph D degree prior to
01.01.1996, were given two incentive increments. Petitioner was,
accordingly, given those incentives, then without reason the State
Government in 2008 withdrew the incentives, to which this Court,
would only mean that this incentive could not be given any longer
because this incentive was available only to persons who had
acquired Ph D degree prior to 01.01.1996. The incentive resolution
had out lived its purpose on the assumption that incentives,
wherever due, were already granted and anyone acquiring Ph D
degree thereafter, would not naturally be entitled to the incentive.
The peculiar way the University interprets this that the incentive
which was already granted, was not only cancelled but all payments
made pursuant thereto had to be recovered from the teachers. That
could never even the intent because such orders could not have been
passed without notice to the parties and without disclosure of
reasons. Then in the same paragraph it is said that the incentives
were then restored in 2010 but the petitioner could not be given this
advantage of restoration of incentive which he had actually got
earlier itself because he had retired before that day. I fail to see the
logic. First, the incentive is given, payments made then further
payments stopped and recovery ordered. When this stop is negated,
the benefit does not flow to the petitioner as he is retired.
Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the
notice of this Court that this resolution of the State Government was
-3-
under consideration of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.12432 of 2007 and
as far back as on 31.03.2009 this Court had set side those decisions
in the case of petitioner’s University itself, still the University is
trying to ignore that judgment misleading the petitioner and this
Court as well. This shows the extent to which the University can go
to generate litigation rather than encouraging academics.
Let University file a further affidavit clarifying the
position. Other issues would be adverted on the next date.
As substantial amounts have now been paid to the
petitioner, it is only deemed fit and proper that University pays
interest thereof @ 12 % per annum from the date the amount was
due till the date amount was paid for this inordinate delay in
payment.
Put up this case on 11th October, 2010 retaining its
position.
Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)