The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the University to pay the admitted dues of the employees, including revised pay-scale and leave encashment, even after their superannuation, and that the revision of pay-scale for employees on deputation was not contingent on the approval of the State Government.

Shashank Kumar Singh, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 1-11 -2002 passed in CWJC No. 9623 of 2002.

2. The appellants are the respondents in the writ application and are functionaries of Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa. The writ application had been initiated by the two employees of the State Government who were on deputation in Rajendra Agricultural University and had superannuated but were not being paid their admitted Genera! Provident Fund dues, leave encashment and arrears of revised pay of their scale with effect from 1-1-1996.

3. It may not be out of place to mention that during pendency of the writ petition itself the liability had been accepted by the respondent University inasmuch as certain amounts were paid by producing demand draft of Rs. 16,053.00 issued in favour of Shambhu Nath, Petitioner No. 1 for payment of his provident fund amount. A further undertaking was given by the appellants before the writ Court to pay the provident fund dues of the petitioner No. 2 of the writ petition for which bill had already been submitted to the Treasury by the next day, i.e., 2-11-2002. As regards leave encashment and arrears of revised pay were concerned, Counsel for the University submitted the the requestion for release of the fund was sent to the Government in September, 2002 but as the same had not been received so far as such he had brought two cheques for payment of leave encashment dues of the petitioners as per the pre-revised scale. The said cheques were also handed over to learned Counsel for the petitioners in Court.

4. The only dispute which remains is relating to payment of revised pay-scale as per the revision from 1-1-1996. A fact which is admitted by Counsel for the appellants is that both the writ petitioners were employees of the State Government on deputation to the University. Further fact which has been admitted is that the pay-scale of a Government employee stood revised from 1-1-1996 and as the writ petitioners continued to be the employees of the State Government, pay protection was there and their pay-scale also stood revised. As such the dues of the petitioners were admitted. A further admission which is there is that during the period of deputation the liability to pay was of the University.

5. The only dispute which has been raised is as to whether the aforesaid revision would be automatic or would be only after the approval of the State Government in terms of sec. 25 (2) of the Act sec. 25 (2) of the Act, which has been relied upon specifically goes to show that it relates to the employees of the University. The petitioners were the employees of the State of Bihar on deputation to the University. As such, perhaps the appellants cannot take the benefit of a clause which is meant for their employees and not the employees of State of Bihar on deputation.

6. From the order of the writ Court it would transpire that Counsel appearing for the University before it did not dispute that in terms of the provisions of the Act it was the liability of the University to pay the dues relating to revised scale as well as the leave encashment in the revised scale. In view of the aforesaid facts today at this stage, the said liability cannot be denied by the University in view of the admission of learned Counsel for the appellants recorded by the writ Court.

7. Lastly, a submission has been made regarding imposition of cost of Rs. 5,000.00 on the Vice-Chancellor which was directed to be realised from his pocket and the rate of interest at 8 percent annum till the payment of the dues which directed to be paid within four weeks from the date of passing of the order. A submission has been made by learned Counsel for the appellants that the present Vice-Chancellor has joined within six months back and as such the question of his personal liability does not arise when the University has been writing to the State Government since 2001 for payment of revi