Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
CWJC Nos. 9131 of 2022 with 5914 of 2023
(12.1.2024)
Dr. Uday Chandra Mishra (in 9131)
Sharda Sinha (Padmabhushan) (in 5914) ... Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
(in both)
University laws – Denial of monthly pension – Quashing – Pay Verification Cell withheld the pay slip of the petitioner, relying upon which the university stopped the payment of monthly pension as well as other legitimate terminal dues, including salary difference of the petitioner – Petitioners were appointed against the non-sanctioned post which were later on sanctioned – Right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 ensures equality amongst equals and its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment – Petitioners who are equally identically situated cannot be treated differently that too when the authorities never objected to the petitioner's working and made payment to them from the government fund and also promoted them during their service period – If an employee has been accorded all the benefits of a regular employee, viz, regular salary in the prescribed pay scale, increment, promotion leading to regularization and unconditional superannuation with all the retiral benefits, he is obviously a regular holder of the post – If their services is to be terminated or regularization is to be cancelled, State Government should have resorted to statutory Rules and Regulation, applicable to them – Once a right has been created or vested in favour of the petitioners, that cannot be divested unilaterally, in such a casual and cavalier manner without giving any show cause notice or proper opportunity of hearing – Provision regarding regularization of the services of the petitioners had the support of law and now it cannot be termed their appointment/regularization void ab initio after five years of their retirement – Impugned order holding the regularization of the petitioners to be illegal after five years of their retirement cannot said to be justified under any law without compliance of the principles of natural justice – Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order(s) – Writ petitions stand allowed – No order as to cost(s). (Paras 31 to 39)
Harish Kumar, J. – Since the issue(s) involved in both the writ petitions are identical in nature, with the consent of the parties, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. However, for the purposes of easy references, the facts of both the writ petitions are being recorded separately.
2. Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Amit Bhushan, learned counsel for the State as well as Md. Nadim Siraj, learned counsel for the L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga (for short “the University”) (in C.W.J.C. No. 9131 of 2022) and Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the State and Md. Nadim Siraj, learned counsel for the University (in C.W.J.C. No. 5914 of 2023).
Re.:C.W.J.C. No. 9131 of 2022
3. The petitioner by invoking the prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the letter no. 249 dated 07.02.2022 issued under the signature of respondent no.4, whereby the Pay Verification Cell duly constituted by the State Government has withheld the pay slip of the petitioner, relying upon which the University stopped the payment of monthly pension as well as other legitimate terminal dues, including salary difference of the petitioner.
4. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent no.3 came out with an order as contained in Memo No. 594 dated 20.02.2023 by which the service of the petitioner has been held illegal, which order was also put to challenge by the writ petitioner by filing Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2023.
5. Now coming to the facts of the case, the petitioner initially joined on the second post of Lecturer on 17.11.1979 in the Department of Sociology, BMA College, Baheri, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted by the Governing Body of the College. Subsequently, the State Government vide letter no. 1333 dated 05.08.1981 sanctioned the second post. Further, for the purpose of absorption of service of teachers under 3rd Absorption Statute, an Absorption Committee was constituted by the Chancellor whereby the names of 28 teachers were approved for absorption vide letter dated 03.02.1998, however, the said letter was subsequently stayed by the Chancellor. Consequently, CWJC No. 10032 of 1999 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.07.2008 with a direction to expedite absorption. Being aggrieved, LPA No. 875 of 2008 was preferred and the same stood dismissed on 12.11.2008, resulting into absorption of some of the teachers, leaving apart 13 other teachers, including the petitioner due to some technical reasons.
6. It is the submission of the petitioner that in the meantime, two of the aggrieved temporary teachers, namely, Devendra Rai and Shashi Kant Prasad Singh moved before this Court by filing CWJC No. 17021 of 2008 and CWJC No. 7550 of 2009, which were disposed of vide order dated 16.11.2020 and 18.11.2010, respectively (Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition). In compliance to the afore-noted order(s), the University vide letter no. 5562/11 dated 18.10.2011 placed the matter for consideration by the Chancellor for absorption of 13 teachers including the petitioner. The Governor Secretariat also issued letter no. 2400/GS(I) dated 17.09.2013 with a direction to the University to consider the case of the petitioner and other Lecturers for absorption. Pursuant thereto, the Post Creation, Absorption and Confirmation Committee in its meeting dated 22.01.2016 made recommendation for absorption of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and the same was approved by the Syndicate of the University vide Memo No. 3712-21/16 dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
7. It is further case of the petitioner that being absorbed w.e.f. 15.06.1982 in view of the order passed in CWJC No. 17021 of 2008 (Devendra Rai vs. L.N. Mithila University & Ors.) as also un
The right to pension is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away without due process, and similarly situated employees must be treated equally under the law.
The cancellation of an employee's regularization based on arbitrary grounds violates principles of non-discrimination and due process, necessitating restoration of benefits to similarly situated indi....
Employees serving over ten years without unlawful intervention are entitled to pension benefits, even if prior appointments were irregular. Bureaucratic failure to regularize should not impede legal ....
The State Government lacks jurisdiction to cancel a university's regularization notification, which violates principles of equality and the Bihar State Litigation Policy.
The court held that actions taken by authorities without following due process to invalidate service and withhold pension are illegal and unenforceable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization after completing ten years of service on sanctioned and vacant posts, as supported by constitutional....
Prolonged service of over ten years without legal hindrance can qualify employees for regularization, regardless of the initial nature of their appointments.
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
