AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 06.02.2014 as contained in Letter No. VBU/P/R/171/2014 issued
by the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, whereby and whereunder, the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary from January, 2011 to
24.09.2013 has been rejected.
Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to give the consequential benefits thereof in terms of the order dated 17th July,
2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5527-5543 of 2013 arising from SLP (C) Nos.18766-18782 of 2010. Further
prayer has been made for payment of difference amount of 6th Pay Revision on and from 1st January, 2006, superannuation benefits i.e. the gratuity,
provident fund, leave encashment, pension and commutation of 1/3rd pension treating the petitioner to be in service till 16.12.2013 or in the alternative
till 17th July, 2013.
The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in Sanskrit in Sri R.K.
Mahila College and on completion of 62 years of age, was retired on 31st December, 2010. The petitioner was claiming for enhancement of the age of
superannuation from 62 years to 65 years of age and as the same was not considered, he moved before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.6236 of
2010 and continued to work even after completion of 62 years of service. This Court vide order dated 22.12.2010 passed an interim order, allowing the
petitioner to discharge her duties and directed the respondent-University to allow the petitioner to continue in the services. Finally, this Court allowed
the writ petition vide order dated 10.01.2011 and extended the age of superannuation of the petitioner and others till they attained the age of 65 years.
The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Hon'ble
Division Bench in LPA No. 86 of 2011 along with other similar cases. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide its order dated 25th July, 2013 set aside the
order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge and the LPA preferred by the respondents was allowed in view of the final
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma etc. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred
representation before the respondents to consider her case for payment of her salary from January, 2011 to 31st December, 2013 as she had
continued to work for that period, in view of interim protection granted by this Court. But the case of the petitioner was not considered for payment of
salary and the same was rejected vide order dated 06.02.2014. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has been compelled to
knock the door of this Court for redressal of her grievances.
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the interim protection granted by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
22.12.2010, petitioner was entitled for salary of the aforesaid period i.e. from January, 2011 to 24.09.2013. Learned counsel draws the attention of the
Court towards paragraphs 67 of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma etc. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and
argues that while rejecting the claim of other similarly situated persons, the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly observed that the persons, who have continued
to work on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court or any other Court, shall not be denied the benefit of service during the said period and
as such, admittedly, the petitioner worked during that period and she is entitled for salary of the said period in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. Learned counsel further argues that the respondent-University failed to appreciate the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court and had
considered only the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which is not tenable in the eyes of
law.
Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Mithilesh Sharma, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Anshuman Kumar appearing on behalf of the
respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled for salary of the said period as she never worked for that period rather, she was never permitted
to work after superannuation. There is no order of University allowing her to continue to work after 62 years of age, rather the petitioner continued on
her own. Learned counsel further argues that the order of the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court had already merged with the final order of
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench has rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of order passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma etc. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and
as such, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained and the petitioner is not entitled for a single penny as claimed for.
Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of considered view that no case is made out for interference in
the writ petition in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in view of the
observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma etc. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. that the persons, who have continued
to work on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court or any other Court, shall not be denied the benefit of service during the said period, the
petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation along with a copy of this order before the respondent-University, within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order for grant of salary for the period from January, 2011 to April, 2011 for which she is entitled in view of the
aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No. 3 is further directed to pass a reasoned order
on the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, considering the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court and if the petitioner
is found entitled for the benefits of salary from January, 2011 to April, 2011, the same shall be extended to her, within a period of six weeks thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, direction and judicial pronouncement, this writ petition stands disposed of.