Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
Dr. Surendra Pati Tiwari S/o Late Shiv Shambhu Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13493 of 2013
Decided on : 02-04-2024
EMPLOYMENT - ADHOC TEACHER SALARY DISPUTE - GOVERNOR'S LETTER DATED 21.12.1984 - The court discussed the provisions of the Chancellor's letter which directed the payment of salaries to adhoc teachers, emphasizing that the engagement of the petitioner was not sanctioned by the University. The court interpreted the Chancellor's letter as not creating a binding obligation on the University for payments made without proper appointment. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation to support his claims, leading to the dismissal of the writ application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an adhoc Lecturer at D.K. College, Dumraon, sought directions for payment of salary based on a Chancellor's letter from 1984. He claimed he was engaged as an adhoc Lecturer but faced multiple terminations and reinstatements without formal appointment letters.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner could not substantiate his claims with necessary documentation, such as an appointment letter or proof of service. The evidence indicated that he was engaged without proper sanction from the University, and his claims were unsupported by the records.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to salary payments as an adhoc Lecturer based on the Chancellor's letter and whether he was validly appointed by the College.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Chancellor's letter did not impose a binding obligation on the University for payments made to individuals not formally appointed against sanctioned posts. The lack of documentation from the petitioner undermined his claims.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed due to lack of merit and insufficient evidence to support the petitioner's claims for salary payments.
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
1. Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for a direction to the respondents to pay agreed salary to the petitioner from the date of his initial joining till May, 1990 in light of the direction given by the Hon’ble Chancellor vide letter no. -155/OSD/GS(J) dated 21.12.1984 which was basic salary of a Lecturer of that relevant time and revised from time to time as well. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to pay salary of a Lecturer to the petitioner from 1.6.1990 till he worked as an adhoc Lecturer.
3. The case of the petitioner is that in light of the Chancellor’s letter dated 21.12.1984, the petitioner was engaged by the Principal, D.K. College, Dumraon as an adhoc Lecturer in the department of Philosophy on 15.7.1985. He was terminated on 26.4.1988 and subsequently once again reinstated in service along with others on 11.3.1989. Pursuant to his reinstatement, the petitioner joined on 27.3.1989. His services was once again terminated on 2.8.1987 and he was again reinstated on 28.8.1997. It is submitted that pursuant to an order of this Court, on an enquiry made by the respondent-University, the college in question ie the D.K. College, Dumraon sent information about adhoc teachers working in the college which included the petitioner in the department of Philosophy. Subsequently the order dated 2.2.2020 of this Court in response to which the respondent-University had sought information from the college, was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the petitioner was also a party. The same was disposed of on 18.5.2007 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directing the respondents to fill the vacant posts taking into consideration the cases of all those teachers who have the requisite qualification upon relaxation of age, if permissible by law. It is stated that the petitioner filed a representation. A seven man committee was constituted to examine the qualification of the adhoc teachers and of the two posts created on the basis of workload, only one post was sanctioned in the department. Professor Ram Suchit Sinha was working on the same but on his retirement on 30.9.2000, it is the petitioner who is discharging the responsibility of the department which would be evident from the letter dated 17.2.2001 of the Principal of the College. It is the case of the petitioner that he was never paid in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Chancellor as contained in his letter dated 21.12.1984 which clearly directed for payment at the rate of Rs.700/ per month to the adhoc teachers.
4. It may be stated here that over a period of time, several supplementary affidavits were filed in the case on behalf of the petitioner according to which he was paid remuneration of Rs.250/ only from the date of joining to February, 1988 and thereafter Rs.400/ per month upto February, 1997.
5. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, Veer Kunwar Singh University as also the Principal, D.K. College, Dumraon.
6. The case of the respondent-Veer Kunwar Singh University is that the petitioner was never appointed as an adhoc teacher in the College by the University rather he was engaged by the concerned Principal of the College on a fixed remuneration which varied between Rs.2 per class upto Rs.700/ per month and the University has no responsibility in this regard. It is further stated that the Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University had written to all concerned colleges including the D.K. College, Dumraon asking him to submit a detailed report with respect to the petitioner and others and as per the report submitted by the Principal of the College, the petitioner is not working after February, 1997. In another counter-affidavit of the University, it is stated that the Syndicate of the University took a decision in the year 1996 to pay to such teachers Rs.35 per lecture and subject to a maximum of
Point of Law : Probation appointment - Appointment of the petitioner was not made on the said post of lecturer after following the requisite procedure under Statute 417 framed by the University.
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
The court ruled that an appointment against a leave vacancy requires adherence to prescribed procedures, and the appellant lacked the legal right to compel salary payment from the University.
The State Government's liability for salary payments to college staff as per Section 60-E of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, and the inability of government orders to override statutory rules.
The court emphasized the need for a detailed enquiry into the appointment of the petitioners and highlighted the importance of compliance with rules for salary release and eligibility determination.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to support a salary claim and the influence of timing on entitlement to salary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
