Dr. Dipak Banerjee vs Ranchi University and Others

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 17.4.2001, contained in Annexure-4, whereby the petitioner''s representation regarding payment of salary for the period from November, 1998 to January, 2002 has been rejected.

According to the petitioner, he was selected for the post of Lecturer in History after following due procedure of selection pursuant to the advertisement of the post in ''Ranchi Express'' in its daily edition on 6th October, 1983. The petitioner joined the college on getting appointment letter No. P-216-18 dated 2.9.1985. At that time the college was affiliated to the Ranchi University (University for short). However, it became a constituent unit under the Ranchi University w.e.f. 30.4.1986. By the procedure of taking over of the college, teaching and non-teaching staff were absorbed.

After joining his post as Lecturer in the College, he has been getting his salary regularly at the rate fixed by the Managing Committee. Payment of salary continued even after taking over of the college by the University at the prescribed pay-scale, but his salary and allowance has been stopped since November, 1990. The petitioner filed representation for regularization of his service and for payment of salary at the prescribed pay-scale for the post of Lecturer from the date, the college was taken over as a constituent unit i.e. 6th November, 1990 followed by several reminders, but the same were not heeded upon and no payment was given in spite of discharging his duty. Suddenly, in March, 1995, the petitioner was orally asked to stop coming on duty without disclosing any reason. No notice In writing was served on him. The petitioner thereafter preferred the writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1647 of 1995(R). However, by order gated 3.1.1997, petitioner was permitted to withdraw the said writ petition for pursuing the matter departmentally. The petitioner persuaded the matter in the department of the University, but tono effect. He again filed writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 955 of 1997(R). The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 24.4.1997 directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Vice-Chancellor, who in turn was directed to decide the matter within six weeks. The petitioner again filed representation before the University. But in spite of the order of this Court, the matter was not disposed of to the knowledge of the petitioner, he filed an application for initiating contempt against the University-authorities.

In the contempt proceeding, it was replied that the order of the Court was already complied with and the petitioner''s claim was considered and disposed of by order dated 25.5.1997. On such statement of the opposite party, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the contempt application.

The petitioner filed an appeal against the order before the Chancellor. His case was thereafter referred to the Screening Committee. The Chancellor vide its letter No. BSU/9/97-194 GS dated 7.5.1998 passed the order reinstating the petitioner and other similarly situated teachers and non-teaching staff of the constituent colleges under the University.

The same was communicated by the University by Memo No. RU/VC/R/3348/98 dated 7th November, 1998. The petitioner and other teachers (in all 13) were directed to resume their duty with immediate effect.

Pursuant to that, the petitioner reported to his duty after reinstatement on 9.11.1998.

The petitioner has been continuously working since thereafter to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. It has been submitted that in spite of his continuous working as Lecturer, his salary has not been paid from November, 1998 to January, 2002.

The petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition had preferred an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1767 of 2001, praying for an interim order and direction on the University to pay the current salary. By order dated 4.1.2002, the said interlocutory application was disposed of with a direction to the respondent-University to make payment of current salary to the petitioner till disposal of the writ petition or till any order passed by the Supreme Court in the connected mater. The University after receipt of the said order of this Court has been paying current salary to the petitioner.

It has been submitted that as the petitioner had continuously worked during the period from November, 1998 to January, 2002 he is entitled to get the full salary. In spite of his continuous working, salary of the said period was not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner again filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 161 of 2001. The said writ application was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Vice-Chancellor of the Ranchi University directing him to enquire the matter and pass a reasoned order on his representation within, a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation.

The impugned order has been passed on the said direction, whereby his claim has been rejected on extraneous ground. The University, however, has not disputed the genuine claim of the petitioner rather it was observed that notification by which the petitioner was reinstated, itself clearly mentioned that the payment of salary will be made subject to release of fund from the State Government by name. According to the petitioner, the State Government neither approved the reinstatement of the petitioner nor the order for release of fund for payment of salary to the petitioner has been passed. In that view, the petitioner''s representation has been rejected by the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 18.4.2001, as contained in Annexure-4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the University cannot deny the genuine claim of the petitioner on the ground of non-receipt of fund from the State Government. The petitioner is an employee of the University and the duty is caste upon the University to get the fund from the State Government and make payment of salary or dues to its employees.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5. It has been stated, inter alia, that at the time of the petitioner''s reinstatement, it was made clear that the payment of salary and the arrears thereof shall be made on getting the fund from the State Government by name. The State Government has not approved the services of the petitioner nor the fund has been released till date. The University is, thus, not at fault and the allegation of withholding the arrears of salary by the University is unfounded.

Though the counter affidavit has been filed, in spite of repeated calls, nobody appeared on behalf of the University-authority at the time of hearing.

This writ petition is of the year 2001 and the counter affidavit has been filed in the year 2002. Since thereafter more than six years, nobody

This writ petition is being disposed of after hearing the petitioner and considering the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-University. It is an admitted position on the record that the University had been paying current salary to the petitioner since February, 2002.

In view of the above, I see no reason for withholding the petitioner''s salary for the period from November, 1998 to January, 2002 during which he admittedly worked and that fact has not been denied by the University.

So far as stand of the University regarding non-receipt of fund from the State Government is concerned, this cannot be held to be valid ground as the petitioner is the employee of the University and is not an employee of the State Government and the duty is caste upon the University to arrange the fund and pay the admissible amount/arrears of salary to the petitioner.

Since the University has been now paying the current salary, it is expected that it must have also got the required fund for that purpose by now.

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the concerned respondents to pay the arrears of the petitioner''s salary from 9th November, 1998 to January, 2002 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

If the arrears of the petitioner''s salary is not paid within the said prescribed period, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 10% per annum from the date the amount is payable till the date of final payment.

There shall be no order as to costs.