Patna High Court - Orders
Md.Mahfuzal Hasan vs The Magadh University & Ors on 13 October, 2014
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7625 of 2011
======================================================
1. Md.Mahfuzal Hasan S/O Late Mura R/O Mohalla - Haider Manzil,
Police Station - New Karimganj, Distt. - Gaya
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Magadh University Through Its Registrar, Magadh Unviersity,
Bodh Gaya
2. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh Unviersity, Bodh Gaya, Gaya
3. The Registrar, Magadh Unviersity, Bodh Gaya, District - Gaya
4. The Finance Officer, Magadh Unviersity, Bodh Gaya, District - Gaya
5. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
6. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Virendra Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vipin Kumar, Adv..
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 13-10-2014
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. In the present case, two reliefs have been sought for. The first relief is for giving direction to the respondents to merge 50 per cent dearness relief in the basic pension of the petitioner with effect from 1st January 2005 and also grant two extra annual increment for Ph.D with effect from 1st January 1996 on the basis of judicial pronouncement by this Court and also to grant the consequential benefits.
Petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in the year 1969 in Magadh University and he superannuated from the post of Patna High Court CWJC No.7625 of 2011 (4) dt.13-10-2014 2/5 University Professor from the Department of Urdu, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya on 31st August 2004.
Under the time bound scheme, petitioner was promoted as Reader with effect from 29th September 1982 vide Memo No. 1380/GI dated 28th October 1998 and was promoted to the post of University Professor after completion of 16 years under Time bound promotion scheme with effect from 24th March 1988.
As per claim of the petitioner, he obtained Ph.D degree in the year 1975. According to UGC in the 5th Pay Revision it was recommended for awarding four extra increment to the persons who were appointed Lecturer with Ph.D degree and for giving two extra increments to the teachers who acquired Ph.D degree while in service which is apparent from Clause-VI of the recommendation.
So far grievance of the petitioner that the University has not given the benefit of 50 per cent merger of the Dearness relief with basic pension no longer in dispute as similarly situated persons have received relief, but the petitioner has been deprived of it and has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in CWJC No. 7605 of 2009.
So far this issue is concerned, this matter is no longer Patna High Court CWJC No.7625 of 2011 (4) dt.13-10-2014 3/5 integra , as this Court has taken the view of merger of 50 per cent Dearness relief with basic pension and it will be proper to quote the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment which is as follows:
Earlier by order dated 3.12.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.3616 of 2010 (Dr. Himanshu Bhushan Vs. The T.M. Bhagalpur University and Ors.) and other analogous writ petitions filed almost for similar relief were disposed of by this Court in the light of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (4) BBCJ ( 582) ; Prof. Dr. Ram Dinesh Sharma Vs. T.M. Bhagalpur University and Ors. Since the issue has already been settled by the Division Bench, there is no reason to deviate from the said Judgment. By filing counter affidavit, a stand has been taken by the Respondents that against Division Bench Judgment of Ram Dinesh Sharma's case (Supra), an S.L.P. has been filed, which is still pending. The same point was considered in Dr. Himanshu Bhushan's case (Supra) and thereafter it was declared that the petitioners of those writ petitions were entitled to get merger of 50 % of dearness relief in their basic pension with effect from 1.1.2005. In respect of 50% dearness Relief , it was considered in Dr. Himanshu Bhushan's case ( supra) as follows:
" So far as 50% dearness relief is concerned, same has already been clarified by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in LPA 434 of 2009 ( Prof.) (Dr.) Ram Dinesh Sharma Vs. The Tilkamanjhi Bhagalpur University, which has been reported in 2008 (4) BBCJ 582. A Division Bench, after considering the provisions of Patna High Court CWJC No.7625 of 2011 (4) dt.13-10-2014 4/5 Article/Statute -16, has held that merger of 50% of dearness relief in the basic pension of the University employees is applicable and they are entitled for the same. It is not in dispute that same provisions are applicable in all the University of Bihar. Merely on the ground that an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court is pending, the petitioners cannot be denied the relief which has been sought for in the present writ petition in view of Division Bench Judgment of this Court and as such, it is declared that the petitioners are entitled to get merger of the 50% of the dearness relief in their basic pension with effect from 1.1.2005".
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to merger of 50 per cent of Dearness relief with the basic pension with effect from 1st January 2005.
So far another relief that has been sought by the petitioner, that has completed the Ph.D during his service period and he is entitled to two extra increments and has relied on the order passed in the case of CWJC No. 15136 of 2010 (Ram Chandra Roy Madhukar v. The State of Bihar and others) where this Court has considered the UGC scheme vis-à-vis letters issued by the State of Bihar from time to time and granted the relief of two extra increments taking into consideration that other persons have also been granted identical relief.
Counsel for the University submits that as the Patna High Court CWJC No.7625 of 2011 (4) dt.13-10-2014 5/5 petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Professor, he is not entitled to the relief sought for.
From the order it appears that the Government has earlier issued the letter and thereby terminated the entitlement of two extra increments but this Court has held that the relief that has already been granted to the persons concerned cannot be taken away and later on by another letter the Government has restored the same.
This Court directs the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the authority concerned who will examine the case of petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the said relief, he will be given the same with all consequential benefits within six months from the date of filing the application along with copy of this order, as given to other similarly situated persons.
With the above observation/direction, this petition is disposed of.
Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J) U