IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1231 of 2011
with
W.P.(S) No. 1232 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1233 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1234 of 2011,
W.P.(S) No. 1235 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1236 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1237 of 2011,
W.P.(S) No. 1241 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1242 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1362 of 2011,
W.P.(S) No. 1470 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1509 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1552 of 2011,
W.P.(S) No. 1557 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1563 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1593 of 2011,
W.P.(S) No. 1624 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1660 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1669 of 2011,
W.P.(S) No. 1670 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1877 of 2011, W.P.(S) No. 1879 of 2011,
W.P.(S) No. 2019 of 2011 and W.P.(S) No. 2050 of 2011.
-----
Mrs. Tunuka Devi (in W.P.(S) No. 1231 of 2011)
Prof. Indrasan Singh (in W.P.(S) No. 1232 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Umeshwari Charan (in W.P.(S) No. 1233 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Satya Deo Singh (in W.P.(S) No. 1234 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Bharat Prasad (in W.P.(S) No. 1235 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Bhagwan Jee Singh (in W.P.(S) No. 1236 of 2011)
Shankar Prasad Agrawal (in W.P.(S) No. 1237 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Braj Kishore Pathak (in W.P.(S) No. 1241 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Raghubansh Kr. Singh (in W.P.(S) No. 1242 of 2011)
Amitabh Dixit & Anr. (in W.P.(S) No. 1362 of 2011)
Dr. Ranjan Kumar (in W.P.(S) No. 1470 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Dharmraj Tiwari (in W.P.(S) No. 1509 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Kishori Mohan Pd. (in W.P.(S) No. 1552 of 2011)
Prof. Razi Ahmad (in W.P.(S) No. 1557 of 2011)
Prof. Harihar Singh (in W.P.(S) No. 1563 of 2011)
Prof.Surya Kant Chaudhary (in W.P.(S) No. 1593 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Brij Kishore Sahay (in W.P.(S) No. 1624 of 2011)
Prof. Kripal Tiwary (in W.P.(S) No. 1660 of 2011)
Rameshwar Prasad (in W.P.(S) No. 1669 of 2011)
Prof. Deo Narayan Lal (in W.P.(S) No. 1670 of 2011)
Dr. Hiralal Agrawal (in W.P.(S) No. 1877 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Awadheshwar Singh (in W.P.(S) No. 1879 of 2011)
Prof. Janeshwar Shukla (in W.P.(S) No. 2019 of 2011)
Prof.(Dr.) Md. Wajihuddin (in W.P.(S) No. 2050 of 2011)
............ ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (in all cases) ......... Respondents.
..............
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
..............
For the petitioners : M/s Dr. Shree Krishna Pandey,
Niladri Shekhar Mukherjee,
Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Nagendra
Tiwary, Devendra Kumar Pandey
For the State : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate
For Nilamber-Pitambar
University : M/s Kaushal Agarwal, Ananda Sen
Prabhash Kumar
For the Ranchi University : M/s Anoop Kumar Mehta,
Amit Kumar Sinha.
.............
2/23.06.2011
: In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners’ common grievance is
that though they were entitled to get all their service terminal benefits
and retiral dues after their retirement as teachers of the college, their
dues have not been paid to them even after several years of their
-2-
retirement. The petitioners have prayed for direction on the respondent-
University to pay the balance retiral dues including the difference of pay
and pension payable to the petitioners on the U.G.C. revised scale.
It has been submitted that the petitioners (husband of the
petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1231/2011 and father of the petitioners in W.P.
(S) No.1362/2011) were teachers in G.L.A. College, Daltonganj. They
retired on attaining the age of superannuation. After their retirement the
petitioners were entitled to get the arrears of service period as also the
retiral benefits, but in spite of their repeated requests and
representations, full retiral dues have not been paid to them till date.
Even in the cases in which retiral dues have been partly paid, the same
were not calculated on the basis of revised UGC scale which is
applicable to the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ranchi University
submitted that now in view of creation of Nilambar-Pitambar University,
the said University has to consider the petitioners’ claim and pay the
balance dues to the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Nilambar-Pitambar
University, on the other hand, submitted that some of the petitioners
retired from Ranchi University and, as such, Ranchi University is liable
for payment of the dues claimed by the petitioners. However, learned
counsel for the said University submitted that the petitioners’ respective
claims shall be considered by them and appropriate order shall be
passed in accordance with law.
In view of the said submissions of learned counsel for the
University, this batch of the writ petitions is disposed of directing the
Universities to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate
order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of the representation.
It is made clear that the concerned University shall be that
University, from which the petitioner(s) retired. Even if in the cases that
the claim is payable by both the Universities, the same shall be settled
between the Universities. But in any event, the claim shall be payable to
the petitioner(s) by the University from which he/they retired. On
consideration of the petitioners’ claim, the amount found payable to them
shall be paid to the petitioner(s) within a period of two months from the
date of disposing of his/their claim by the respondent(s) with statutory
interest.
-3-
If the admitted amount(s) is/are not paid to the petitioner(s) within
the said period, the petitioner(s) shall be entitled to get compensatory
interest @ 10% per annum in addition to the statutory interest calculated
from the date the amount(s) found due till the date of actual payment.
The Universities shall be at liberty to recover the amount of
compensatory interest from the erring officials.
It goes without saying that if the University has to get any amount
from the State Government, it must submit a requisition well within time
and if it is found that the amount is payable by the State Government,
the concerned authorities of the State Government shall take immediate
step to release the amount, so that the arrears of the retired teachers be
cleared within the prescribed period, aforesaid.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J)
Shamim/