ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 13-07-2023 Heard Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Jai Prabhat Kishore, learned AC to SC 13 for the State.

2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the pension, gratuity, provident fund, earned leave etc. of the petitioner including the benefits of ACP, MACP, differences of 7 Pay Scale including 10% interest over the entire due amount from the date it is due till the date of its actual payment.

(ii) For holding and declaring that the respondent cannot withheld the benefit of retiral dues of petitioner for a single day after his retirement specially keeping in view that the other teachers of the different Up-Shastri Sanskrit colleges have been paid their entire retiral dues and thus the similar benefit allowed to a similarly situated person cannot be denied to other similarly situated person which is even otherwise contrary to the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.

(iii) For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had retired on 30.09.2011, while he was posted as Graduate Teacher in Hathuaraj Gyanoday Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Mandiri, Patna. The pensionary benefit including the salary for the period, as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of writ petition, has not been given to him till date.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s case is covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara & Others Vs. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, in which it has been held that non-payment of pensionary benefit is denial of fundamental right of the petitioner and is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State informs this Court that the fund has already been released and credited into the account of the University and it is up to the University to see that why petitioner has not been paid dues, as claimed by him.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University informs this Court that no fund has been released by the State Government into the account of the University. Learned counsel further informs that the Registrar of the University has informed that the steps are being taken to make payment of all the admissible retiral dues, as claimed by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks.

7. Considering the rival submissions made by the parties as well as the fact that the petitioner had retired in the Year, 2011 and in spite of lapse of more than twelve years, no retiral dues have been paid to him. This Court deprecates the manner in which the Vice-Chancellor of the University has treated the retired employee of the University by not making him dues amount of the retiral benefits including the pension. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet-will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment.

8. This Court in CWJC No. 6852 of 2021 (Lilawati Mishra vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.) vide order dated 11.05.2022 have taken into consideration the issues regarding disbursement of retiral benefits. The apposite paragraph nos.67 and 68 in this regard are reproduced hereinafter:

“67. Hon'ble, the Supreme Court has, as discussed above, held in several judgments that salary and equally post retiral benefits, which have been duly earned, are rights vesting in such employee. Denial of wages and post retiral benefits in the instant case is a classical case of infringement of Article 21, owing almost entirely to the indifferent attitude of the State towards its employees and former employees. In M/s Shantistar Builders (supra), the three primary actions of human existence have been listed