Tripura High Court
Prof. Dr. Kamalakant Sharma vs Union Of India on 24 June, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.224 of 2024
Prof. Dr. Kamalakant Sharma,
Son of Late Ram Gopal Sharma
Residing at Flat No. A2/503, Celina Aparments,
Behind Ranka Jewelers, Baner Road,
Pune-411045, Maharashtra.
----Petitioner in Person
Versus
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Education,
Department of Higher Education
New Delhi - 110001.
----Respondent No.1
2. The University Grants commission
Represented by the Chairman
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi - 110002
----Respondent No.2
3. The Tripura University (A Central University),
Represented by the Registrar
Tripura University (A Central University)
Suryamaninagar - 799022
Tripura University Sub-Post Office,
P.S. Amtali, District West Tripura.
----Respondent No.3
4. The State of Tripura
Represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Tripura, Education (Higher) Department
New Secretariat Complex, P.O. Kunjaban - 799006
P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura.
----Respondent No.4
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-Person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, DSGI,
Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Saha, Adv.
Date of hearing : 09.05.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 24.06.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
Page 2 of 28
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
Heard the petitioner, Mr. Kamalakant Sharma in
person, as he is not represented by any Learned Counsel. Also
heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharya, assisted by
Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Saha representing the respondent No.3.
Heard Learned DSGI, Mr. B. Bajumder representing the
respondent No.1, Union of India along with Mr. Suman
Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel representing the respondent
No.1, i.e. the UGC. None appeared on behalf of the State.
02. The present petitioner has filed this writ petition
claiming the following reliefs:
"(i) In the interest of justice and equity, this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue
Rule NISI calling upon Respondent, in particular
Respondent No.3 Tripura University to Show-
Cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or Writ
of Mandamus should not be issued directing to
(1) produce all relevant records (2) compensate
Petitioner for damage(s), loss etc. incurred to him
and his family thereon including so far denied all
legitimate service and pecuniary claims, benefits,
privileges etc.
(ii) Initiate Proceedings for Contempt of Court,
Defamation, Intentional Prima Facie Strict
Liability of Negligence and/or Res Ipsa Loquitur
etc. against the alleged Contemnor and/or
otherwise Tripura University for deliberately
willful disobeying Judgment and Order passed by
this Hon'ble High Court on 25.01.2024 in Cont.
Cas.(C) No.157/2023 arising out of W.P.(C)
No.850/2022.
(iii) In the premises aforesaid it is prayed that
Your Lordship may be pleased to consider above
facts, Pass any other or further Order/s as this
etc. of the case so that meaningful justice may be
rendered to Petitioner. And the Petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray."
03. In course of hearing, the petitioner drawn the attention
of the Court referring the documents submitted by annexures and
further submitted that inspite of repeated orders of the Court, the
Page 3 of 28
respondent No.3, Tripura University has not complied with the
Court's order and furthermore, no action was taken by the
respondent No.3 on his communication dated 20.05.2023 i.e.
annexure-4c of the writ petition and finally he submitted that he
also filed contempt proceeding against the respondents and this
High Court in the contempt case No.157 of 2023 dated
25.01.2024 given liberty to him to seek for further redress if the
situation so warrants. Accordingly, he has filed this writ petition
and urged before the Court to allow the same and to direct the
respondents to consider his representation dated 20.05.2023 in
letter and spirit.
04. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee assisted
by Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Saha appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.3, i.e. the Tripura University submitted that this
matter has got a long history. And this present petitioner, without
any basis is filing cases one after another and his grievance has
already been resolved by the respondent No.3 and after resolving
of his grievance, nothing is left for the present respondent No.3
for compliance, and this present writ petition is nothing but to
burden the respondent No.3 with unnecessary litigation and
prayed for dismissal of this writ petition with costs.
05. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Senior Counsel first
of all drawn the attention of the Court the earlier writ petition
bearing No. WP(C) 577 of 2019 and submitted that in the said writ
Page 4 of 28
petition, this Court by order dated 08.05.2019 has passed the
following order. The operative portion of the order runs as follows:
(a) The petitioner shall make a detailed
representation to the respondent No.3, which
shall be in addition to the representations already
on record. This he shall do so within a period of
two weeks from today.
(b) Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent states that with the receipt of the
petitioner's representation and after ascertaining
a convenient date from the Vice Chancellor, he
shall inform the petitioner, the date when he can
meet the former in his office. This he undertakes
to do so within a period of one week from the
receipt of the petitioner's representation.
(c) It is expected of the Vice
Chancellor/respondent No.3 to have the
petitioner's case examined, in accordance with
law, expeditiously and not later than two months,
thereafter, Order assigning reasons shall also be
caused to the petitioner.
(d) Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the
writ petitioner to approach the Court, if so
required, subsequently on the same and
subsequent cause of action.
With the above observations and directions, the
present petition stands disposed of."
06. Thereafter, this present petitioner filed another writ
petition which was numbered as WP(C) 1361 of 2019 and the then
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, after hearing both the sides, by
judgment dated 20.10.2020 was pleased to dispose of the said
writ petition. For the sake of convenience, I would further like to
refer the relevant para No.11 of the said judgment, which is as
follows:
"11. None of the principal claims of the petitioner
can, therefore, be allowed. However, there is one
aspect which still remains to be examined and
that is of delay in releasing his post retiral
benefits such as, leave encashment, gratuity and
payable pension. As noted, a sum of
Rs.51,62,074/- was paid to the petitioner on
01.10.2019 whereas he retired as far back as on
31.03.2007. In the communication dated
09.07.2019 the Vice Chancellor, as noted above,
had stated that an offer for payment of such dues
was made under letter dated 09.07.2010 but no
such letter is produced on record. I am sure there
is a typographical error and the correct date of
Page 5 of 28
the communication may be 09.07.2019. In the
affidavit in reply, the University has stated that
the such dues were sanctioned on 26.9.2019. In
any case, there is no explanation why the
petitioner was not earlier paid such post
retirement benefits. The petitioner may be
agitating his various claims of higher retirement
age or higher pension under CCS(Pension) Rules.
Whether his claims were justified or not is not
important. The University on its own ought to
have released his legitimate dues which
according to the University he was entitled to.
Merely because the petitioner was clamouring for
higher benefits, would not permit the University
to withhold his such post retiral benefits which
even according to the University were payable to
him. These benefits were not in the nature of
mutually exclusive claims. Pendency of the
litigation initiated by the petitioner, therefore,
cannot be the ground on which the University
could have withheld such dues. Claim for interest
may not have been specifically made in the
petition, however, it is consequential in nature.
The University, therefore, must pay interest on
such delayed payment. The petitioner retired
w.e.f. 31.03.2007. Considering three months of
period as reasonable for clearing all such dues,
the respondents shall pay simple interest @ 7%
per annum on the said sum of Rs.51,62,074/-
from 01.07.2007 till payment i.e. 01.10.2019.
Such amount shall be paid over within a period of
4(four) weeks from today. Rest of the claims of
the petitioner are rejected."
07. Challenging that judgment, the respondent No.3
preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court,
which was numbered as W.A. 449 of 2020 and the Division Bench
of this High Court, by judgment and order dated 13.12.2021 also
dismissed the appeal. For the sake of convenience, I would further
like to refer the relevant para Nos.5 and 6 of the said judgment
which are as follows:
"5. We have perused the impugned judgment and
we find that admittedly, a total sum of
Rs.51,62,074/- was paid to the writ petitioner on
01.10.2019. A query was made to the learned
respondent appearing in person as to which
manner the aforesaid amount was paid to him. In
response, he stated that the said amount was
deposited by the appellant-University in his bank
accountt. This fact alone establishes the issue
that if such recourse could be adopted by the
University on 08.10.2019, there was no
justification whatsoever in retaining any amount
due to the private respondent towards arrear
salary etc. including pension for such a long
Page 6 of 28
period of time. Admittedly, the private respondent
retired as early as on 31.03.2007 and the
appellant University took more than 12 years to
effect the said payment.
6. Consequently, we are of the considered view
that retention of the amount due to the writ
petitioner (private respondent) for such a long
period of time was unacceptable and obviously
caused financial loss to the private respondent.
This formed the foundation and/or the basis for
the Hon'ble Single Judge for directing payment of
interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the sum
of Rs.51,62,074/- from 01.07.2007 till payment
i.e. 01.10.2019. We find the aforesaid direction
passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge to be
absolutely judicious and absolutely necessary to
meet the ends of justice and accordingly, find no
merit in the present appeal and accordingly direct
dismissal of this appeal. We further observed that
admittedly till date the interest as directed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge has not been paid. We
therefore, grant the University further 4(four)
weeks time to effect payment of the interest as
directed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and we
make it clear that if the interest is not paid to the
private respondent within the period as directed,
the University shall be called upon to pay further
interest up to the date of actual payment at the
rate stipulated by the Hon'ble Single Judge."
08. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 again preferred one
review petition before the Division Bench of this High Court, which
was numbered as Rev.P.No.07 of 2022 and the Division Bench of
this High Court again by order dated 18.04.2022 disposed of this
petition with the following observation:
"The private respondent appears in person and
contends vigorously otherwise. He asserts that
the computations made by the University are
erroneous. However, in our considered view,
since the University has already computed a sum
of Rs.22,10,175/- as interest due and payable to
the private respondent, we find no justification as
to why the said amount has not been released in
favour of the private respondent. Consequently,
we direct as follows:
(i) The interest directed by the learned Single
Judge as well as by the Division Bench on the
amount payable/paid to the private respondent
shall be computed from the date on which it
became due and payable to the private
respondent till the date of actual payment.
(ii) Further we direct the review petitioner to
release the amount found due and payable as
noted hereinabove in favour of the private
respondent within a period of 2(two) weeks from
today.
Page 7 of 28
(iii) The private respondent is granted liberty to
raise his objections regarding the computations
made by the University in the present review
petition and raise his objections before the
University within a further period of 2(two)
weeks, i.e. 4(four) weeks from today.
(iv) If and when such representation is made, the
same may be considered by the University in
accordance with our aforesaid directions and
disposed of within a further period of 4(four)
weeks therefrom. Nothing stated in this order
shall affect the interest of either side. Any party
aggrieved by the outcome of such proceedings is
at liberty to approach this Court.
With the aforesaid observations and directions,
the review petition stands disposed of."
09. Thereafter, Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the
attention of the Court that by the said judgment/order a direction
was given to the present petitioner to submit one representation
to the respondent-Tripura University and a direction was given to
the respondent No.3 to consider the representation within a
further period of four weeks.
10. After that, due to some administrative reasons, some
delay was caused to dispose of the representation of the petitioner
by the University. However, the respondent No.3 against the
representation of the petitioner dated 16.12.2022 and 16.01.2023
by a speaking communication disposed of the matter of the
petitioner and the communication was made by the Registrar, on
behalf of the Tripura University. For the sake of convenience, I
would like to mention herein below the details of communication
forwarded by 21.03.2023 by the Registrar, to the present
petitioner:
No.F.TU/REG/PEN-02/07(V-I) Date:21.03.2023
To
Prof. Dr. Kamalakant Sharma
PFlat: A-2/503, Wellworth Celina Apartments,
Behind Ranka Jewellers
Baner Toad, Baner
Page 8 of 28
Pune-411045, Maharashtra
Email:[email protected]
Subject:Equitable, fair and just delivery of
legitimate claims and dues et al- reg.
Sir,
Please find the reply with reference to your
letter dated 16.12.2022 and 16.01.2023 on the
above mentioned subject:
1.Reply to prayer no (i). The petitioner is entitled
to Gratuity amounting to Rs.2,40,000/-. The full
and final gratuity amount has already been paid
to the petitioner on 01-10-2019. The petitioner is
guided under CPF scheme.
2. Reply to prayer no. (ii). The petitioner is not
entitled to pension under CCS Pension Rules
1972. When he was in service he was guided by
West Bengal Stated aided University Scheme
1986 and he has been drawing pension as per the
West Bengal State Aided Universities (Death-
cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme 1986. The
Petitioner superannuated from the post of
Professor of Mathematics on 31-03-2007 after
attaining the age of 60(sixty) from Tripura
University during the State period. Subsequently,
Tripura University was converted into Central
University w.e.f. 02-07-2007.
3. Reply to prayer (iii & v). As per the judgment
dated 20-10-2020 in W.P(C) 1361 of 2019 the
matter regarding the eligibility for promotion
under CAS has already been decided. It was
observed by the Hon'ble High Court that
"Regarding his date of promotion under CAS, the
University's stand is that as per the
recommendation of the committee he was
granted such promotion w.e.f. 29-04-2003. His
case is that the same should been granted w.e.f.
05-12-1993 from the date of his eligibility. It is
well settled that mere eligibility for promotion
does not automatically result into right of
promotion. Such promotion depends on range of
factors including suitability of the employee
concerned. Nothing is produced on record that to
suggest that the decision of the University based
on recommendations of the expert committee was
irregular or illegal. More importantly, if according
to the petitioner, he should have been promoted
in the year 1993, he ought to have ventilated his
grievances before appropriate forum within
reasonable time. First time he raised this issue in
the previous writ petition being W.P(C) No.577 of
2019. Any such prayer would thus be hopelessly
barred by delay and laches."
4. Reply to prayer no (iv). As per the judgment
dated 20-10-2020 in W.P(C) 1361 of 2019 it was
observed by the Hon'ble High Court that "His
request for shifting over CPF to GPF was also
correctly not accepted. Firsty, such a prayer was
made long after retirement. Secondly, there is no
basis shown under which such a fresh option was
made available to the employee be the
University."
5. Reply to prayer no(vi). As per the judgment
dated 20-10-2020 in W.P(C) 1361 of 2019 it was
observed by the Hon'ble High Court that "Lastly,
Page 9 of 28
his request for reimbursement of amount of
expenditure for his shifting to home town cannot
be granted because there is no provision for re-
imbursement for shifting to home town after
retirement under the rules of Tripura University
as a State University.
6. Reply to prayer no (vii). That it is crystal clear
from the records that the Tripura University did
not cause any damages, loss etc to the petitioner
or his family. These allegations are baseless,
concocted and are only done to malign the
reputation of the institution. The petitioner had
retired from the post of Professor on attaining the
age of 60 years. Accordingly, he superannuated
w.e.f. 31-03-2007 when he attained the age of 60
years on 16-03-2007. The petitioner fails to show
under which provision of law the services of the
petitioner be continued upto the age of 70 years.
7. Reply to prayer no (viii, ix, x). The prayers
made by the petitioner are repetitive and the
same has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court
of Gauhati in W.P(C) No.303 of 2010 which was
dismissed by Judgment dated 22-12-2011.
Dissatisfied by the judgment the petitioner
preferred W.A no.07 of 2012 which was also
dismissed by judgment dated 25-04-2012. The
petitioner thereupon filed SLP before the
Supreme Court, which was also dismissed by
order dated 13-02-2017. Subsequently the
petitioner had filed another writ petition before
the High Court of Tripura being W.P.(C) 577 of
2019 which similar prayer with a direction to
make representation to the Vice Chancellor of the
Tripura University. The petitioner made his
representation to the Vice Chancellor of the
Tripura University on 15-05-2019. The Vice
Chancellor of the Tripura University to him on 09-
07-2019 in which most of his prayers were
rejected. Subsequently the petitioner had filed
another writ petition before the High Court of
Tripura being W.P(C) 1361 of 2019 which was
disposed off by judgment dated 20-10-2020.
Subsequently appeal was filed by the Tripura
University being W.A 449 of 2020 which was
dismissed by order dated 13-12-2021,
subsequently the Tripura University had filed Rev.
pet No.07 of 2022 which was disposed off by
order dated 18-04-2022. The directions of the
Hon'ble High Court was complied with and all the
dues along with the interest amount has been
paid to the petitioner. The interest payable on
delayed payment of retiral benefits was made in
accordance to the direction of the High Court of
Tripura in Rev. pet No.07 of 2022. The details of
the payment is PFMS Transaction ID
C042248174856 dated 29-04-2022. The interest
amount calculated and paid a sum of
Rs.22,10,175/- as per the order of the Hon'ble
High Court of Tripura. No erroneous calculation
has been made by the University.
Hence the prayers made by the petitioner are
rejected, these prayers were already decided by
the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati, High Court of
Tripura and Supreme Court of India in several
petitions filed by the Petitioner on the same
Page 10 of 28
ground. However as per the directions of the High
Court of Tripura passed in W.P(C)850 of 2022 by
order dated 14-12-2022, Tripura University has
meticulously gone through all your prayers and
on the above mentioned facts and circumstances
reject the prayers made by you in your
representation dated 16-12-2022.
With regard.
Yours faithfully,
(Dr. Deepak Sharma)
Registrar
11. Thereafter, the present petitioner further without any
basis just to harass the respondent again made another
representation on 20.05.2023 i.e. annexure-4(C) of the writ
petition which provides as under:
Prof. Dr. Kamalakant Sharma
Flat: A-2/503, CELINA Apartments, Behind Ranka
Jewellers, Baner Road, Baner, PUNE-411045,
Maharashtra, Mobile: +919822310052, e-mail:
[email protected]
MOST MOST IMMEDIATE 20th May, 2023
The Vice-Chancellor,
Tripura University (A Central University)
Suryamaninagar,
Tripura University Sub-Post Officer-799022,
Tripura (West)
Sub.: Equitable, fair and just delivery of
legitimate claims and dues et al
Re.: Judgement and Order dated 14.12.2022
passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice (Acting), High
Court of Tripura: Your letter no.F.TU/REG/PEN-
02/07(V-I) dated 21.03.2023 responding to
compliance letter dated 16.12.2022 and Reminder
dated 16.01.2023
Sir,
Extremely sorry for delay due to exigencies
(with incurrences of huge all-round expenses,
mental agony, sufferings etc) of very often
hospitalizations in ICU, most recent 3 Major
Surgeries and still under follow-up observations
for 1 more of my wife (aged 72 years suffering
from Sub-Acute Cerebral Ataxia, CAD, HTN,
Diabetes Miletus, Cancer of Breast & Uterine
system had subsequent several major surgeries
earlier also) & my several humble requests
seeking necessary actions redressing perpetual
continuing denials of Equitable, Just delivery and
settlements of legitimate Rights, Claims, Dues,
Privileges etc. therof Prof. Dr. Kamalakant
Sharma, Petitioner-in-Person (Written Petitioner
henceforth) most humbly aver that the letter of
Tripura University No.
F.TU/REG/PEN-02/07(V-I) dt.21.03.2023
Page 11 of 28
(Written Your letter henceforth) in response to
representations of Petitioner dt.16.12.2022 &
16.01.2023 (Written Letter henceforth)
complying with Judgement & Order passed on
14.12.2022 in W.P.(C) No.850/2022 by Hon'ble
High Court of Tripura, Agartala, succinctly put,
being committing Contempt of Court; Negligence
per se and/or Res Ipsa Loquitur; deliberately
ulterior motivated palpable intent to Defame, not
to stop victimization and/or torture, redress
grievances, let Petitioner and his family recover
from serous conditions and/or situations of Life &
Liberty, harassment, mental agony etc.; no
discipline in Financial and Administrative Systems
of the Tripura University etc. indicated very
clearly,
"Presently the University does not have an
independent Internal Audit Cell. An officer of the
Finance Branch is assigned the task of pre-audit
scrutiny of purchase proposals and payment
vouchers as per the Rules. However, the bulk
pasts of the University functioning such as
implementation of developmental plans,
execution of construction projects, budget
control, service records, pension records,
payments of allowances and other benefits as per
the CCS Rules and GFR are not often followed and
holing gaps are left. Establishment of an
Independent Internal Audit Cell is essential to
bring about discipline in the overall functioning of
the financial and administrative systems of the
University."
In "Statistical Data Fact Sheet of Tripura
University" which in fact being "UGC_Data_Final
310112" and that being the position evidently
most illegal, verily discriminatory, arbitrary,
highly prejudiced, selective, subjective use
and/or applications of so-called University Rules
been done creating holing gaps and completely
against the mandatory CCS Rules, GFR etc.
victimizing particular employees e.g., Petitioner
even after lapse of 16 years (considerably long
period of time) thereby confirming that
functioning of the Tripura University (Written
University henceforth) being still arbitrary,
egregiously severe abuse and non-compliances of
Statutorily mandatory legitimate Administrative
and/or Financial Laws, CCS Rules, FR & SR, GFR
2005 etc. as amended from time to time;
violations of Indian Evidence Act 1852, relevant
Sections of IPC and/or CrPC (e.g. Sections
166,188,218); Articles 14, 16 and 21 of
Constitution of India 1950; Conspectus of
Elements, Incidents and Flows of the "Pension"
[vide Delhi High Court WP(C) No.1724/2017 in H
N Sharma & Ors vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors on
21.08.2020], "Under Proper Acknowledgement"
[vide "A Declaration/Assertion/Open
Confession/.... in accordance with the established
Jurisdictions, Laws, Procedures.... authenticating
legal instruments preventing fraudulent
executions/false instruments/...], "It was made
clear to you", "Official Communication-gap";
Principles, Applications and/or Testing of the
Processes of Analytics and/or Decision Making
and/or Causality and/or Public Policy under
Page 12 of 28
grounds of Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety
and Illegality and inter alia for ensuring the
certainty of Justice; Equity; Fair; Natural Justice;
Fundamental rights and other rights etc. in view
of apart from those already stated in WP(C)
No.1361/2019, Rejoinder to Counter Affidavit by
Tripura University and Counter Affidavit as
Respondent in I.A. No.1/2020 in W.A.
No.449/2020 (Written WA henceforth), REV.PET.
No.7/2022 (Written RP henceforth) filed by the
University & as Petitioner in WP(C) No.850/2022
(Written WP henceforth) following circumstances,
claims, events etc. as shown below:
I. That for all practical purposes Tripura
University been deliberately deleteriously
ignoring WP and Affidavits-in-Opposition of
Petitioner in responses to their WA and RP,
Indian Evidence Act 1852, Govt. of India Record
Retention Policy & relevant Sections of IPC
and/or CrPC(e.g.Sections-166, 188, 218); Articles
14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India 1950,
several Judgements & Orders latest being in
W.P.(C) No.850/2022 dated 14.12.2022 passed
by Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, Agartala,
wherein at Para:7 being directed "...The Vice-
Chancellor shall take a pragmatic approach in the
matter considering the age and health condition
of the Petitioner as a senior citizen who is now
around 75 years old. If the decision is taken to
make the payment, the same shall be paid
expeditiously. In the event, if the University is
disputing any claims, the said decision shall be
communicated to him under proper
acknowledgement" and his aforesaid Letter as
shown below:
(Bold and underlined shown by Petitioner)
A) That even though earlier also relevant
necessary Documents, Records, Files et al relating
to Service Records including even Service Book of
Petitioner, copies of Statutorily mandatory Rules,
Regulations etc. [vide Letter No.F.3(243)TU/02
dated 07.06.2005 of Finance Officer, Tripura
University, to Director of Higher Education, Govt.
of Tripura] being not available owing to missing
and/or destruction by frivolous and malicious
plea "the information sought for is not available
as these are not kept in custody" and hence
weeded out. It is to be noted that on 20.11.2017
even CPIO/Registrar (i/c)/Jt. Registrar had been
awarded a token penalty of Rs.5,000/- deductible
from his Salary with stern warning stating that in
order to make the CPIO realize enormity of the
neglect, carelessness towards his duties as CPIO
and not to demotivate Registrar/CPIO, Tripura
University, by imposing maximum penalty of
Rs.25,000/- u/s.20(1) of RTI Act, 2005 by the
Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Central
Information Commission, New Delhi.[vide RP
Para:3vii(C) Page: 81, Para:3viii Page:82; Letter
para: A(b) Page:5,Para:A(q)Page:9] shockingly
the aforesaid Your letter being the latest classy
example of delibereate ulterior motivated
palpable intent of severe abuse of Judicial
Systems, Law, Proceeses etc. thereof & violations
of Indian Evidence Act 1852, Govt. of India
Record Retention Policy and relevant Sections of
Page 13 of 28
the IPC and/or CrPC (e.g.Sections-166, 188,
218); Articles 14,16 & 21 of Constitution of India
1950 by adopting and/or adapting e.g., to
produce none of corroborating Documents,
Papers, Records etc. relating to Imputations,
Claims, Statements, Assertions etc. of the
University and/or refuting those of the Petitioner
in view of following circumstances, event, facts
etc., for example, as stated below:
(i) That Statutory Statements of Initial and
Subsequent Fixations of Pay and/or Pension in
the Revised U.G.C. Pay Scale 2006 and thereafter
of Petitioner and Copy of Memo No.F.175-
Edn(U)/EH/TU-10/2020 dated 14.02.2020 not
been supplied to-date.
Also, reimbursement of amount paid by Petitioner
against Group Insurance is still unknown.
(ii) That apposite Facilities and Full Reliefs in the
Assessment and Computations of Amount of
Income Tax payable against receipt of the Arrear
of Salary and/or Pension, Commutation of
Pensions and Cash Equivalent of Leave Salary
applicable to the Employees of State and/or
Central Universities been deleteriously denied to
the Petitioner by not issuing the mandatory
Income Tax Form No.16 and/or Form No.10E
necessary for filing of the Income Tax Returns
claiming these being not issued to Retired and/or
Pensioners leading to wrong Assessments and
Demand Notices by the Income Tax of India for
the Payment of huge Amount of Income Tax
treating Petitioner as Contractual and/or Purely
Temporary Employee holding the Post of
Professor of Mathematics in the Tripura
University (then a State University) therefor. It is
pertinent to note here that after persistent
reminders by e-mails and phone calls to
concerned Authorities of the University for its
issue enabling him submit them to Department of
Income Tax surprisingly and shockingly Partially
filed Form No.16 with PAN Number applicable for
a Company not State/Central Government dated
18.02.2022 only for the Period 01.04.2019 to
31.03.2020 (FY 2019-20/AY 2020-21) been sent
by e-mail on 25.02.2022 while the same for
subsequent periods are yet to be received by
Petitioner.
(iii) That in response to representation dated
15.05.2019 of Petitioner complying with
Judgement & Order dt.08.05.2019 passed by
Hon'ble Chief Justice of Tripura, High Court of
Tripura, in the WP(C) No.577/2019 as desired by
Prof. Dr. V.L. Dharurkar, the then Vice-Chancellor,
Tripura University, a very brief meeting with
Petitioner in presence of Mr. M. M. Reang, then
Registrar (i/c) & Jt. Registrar, and an Officer,
Finance Branch, Tripura University, been held at
02:00 PM in his Chamber on 21.06.2019 wherein
acknowledging inflictions of injustices at the very
outset had assured most immediate expeditious
reliefs and redressal of grievances by forming a
Committee & all relevant corroborating
Documents, Papers etc. to be produced therein by
the University in presence of the Petitioner for
hearing and arriving at the final decision/(s)
Page 14 of 28
before the last date given as Ordered by the
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura. It is pertinent to
note here the following sequence of events, facts
etc. that
Surprisingly & shockingly contentious letter
No.F.TU/REG/PEN/17/2019 dated 09.07.2019 of
the University been signed by Prof. M.K. Singh as
Registrar(i/c) while 33rd Meeting of Executive
Council, Tripura University, on 30.08.2019
attended and signed on the same day 30.08.2019
by Prof. B. K. Datta as Registrar(i/c) & Ex-officio
Secretary, Executive Council, Tripura University,
but on 06.09.2019 by Prof. Dr. Dharurkar, Vice-
Chancellor, Ex-officio Chairman, Executive
Counsil, who resigned from Post of Vice-
Chancellor w.e.f. 07.09.2019 handing over charge
to Prof. S. Sinha, Senior-most Professor, T.U., and
that in Proceedings 33rd Meeting of Executive
Council vide F.TU/REG/EC/33A/2019 dated
30.08.2019 been stated "In case of Prof. K.K.
Sharma, recommendation of the Committee
constituted vide No.TU/REG/FDC/02/2014 Vol-
III dated 28.08.2019 to look into matter of
pension and other service benefits as claimed by
Dr. K. K. Sharma is accepted and approved" [vide:
Agemda 28/33/2019: To place pension matters of
Dr. Sumanash Dutta, Ex-Reader, Department of
Economics, T.U. and Prof.(Retd.) K.K. Sharma,
Department of Mathematics, T.U.] and no copy of
recommendation(s) of aforesaid Committee
confirming deleteriously vindictive intents of the
University in view of
(α) In aforesaid meeting on 21.06.2019 at 2:00
PM despite commitment of Vice-Chancellor Sir
in his Chamber and several representations of
Petitioner thereafter no such Committee for
hearing and arriving at decision/(s) in
presence of the Petitioner been constituted
and/or Meeting held by the University thereof
vis-à-vis recommendation(s) of aforesaid
meeting being unknown to Petitioner to-date.
(β) Representation dated 18.07.2019 of
Petitioner rebutting egregiously malicious
frivolous vexatious fabricated imputations,
claims etc. stated in the contentious letter dt.
09.07.2019 been ignored deleteriously and no
responses by the University despite reminders
thereof.
B) That deliberate ulterior motivated palpable
intents to do no Homework and/or to go through
already available Papers, Documents, Records
etc. and/or Administrative and/or Financial
Actions, Decisions etc. & adopting and/or
adapting Models, Systems, Processes, Decisions,
Actions and/or follow-ups etc. thereof leading to
completely vindictive, irregular, irrational, illegal
Actions and/or Decisions therefor in view of
following events, facts, circumstances etc., for
example, as shown below:
Reply No.1 of Your letter dated 21.03.2023:
Despite the fact that for post 01.01.2006 retirees
admissible maximum amount of Gratuity being
Rs.10,00,000/- & as per calculation by Tripura
University on 01.10.2019 the amount payable as
Page 15 of 28
Gratuity being Rs.6,46,200/- and Pre-Revised
Last Basic Pay of the Petitioner Rs.20,450/-
(excluding DA: Rs.13,088/-, CA: Rs.200/-)[vide
RP Annexure-4 Page:415] the University paid
Rs.2,40,000/- as Gratuity to Petitioner claiming it
as admissible maximum Revised Amount of the
Pre-Revised maximum amount Rs.35,000/-
violating CCS Rules & No.F.8(8)-FIN(G)/2010
dt.23.12.2010, Finance Dept.(Pension Cell) and
No.F.1(499)-DHF/98 dt.26.03.1999, Govt. of
Tripura Edn. Dept. (Directorate of Higher Edn.)
"The revision of pay-scales of Tripura University
teachers including Vice-Chancellor and
Officers/other Academic Staff" vis-à-vis without
providing any supporting Document, Record etc.
thereof. Also, as decided by the then Finance
Officer Prof. Dr. Sangram Sinha, Department of
Life Science (Botany) and duly affirmed by the
then Vice-Chancellor Prof. Dr. Arunodaya Saha
that only available for employees of erstwhile
CUPG Centre being CPF (called University
Provident Fund) Scheme and so for the GPF opted
Petitioner [vide Tripura University First
Ordinances 1989 Chapter-V Section 30, Provident
Fund, Page-14]
Reply No.4 of Your letter dated 21.03.2023
Petitioner was/is eligible for shifting from
aforesaid CPF(called University Provident Fund)
Scheme to GPF Scheme even as per latest
Judgment and Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India [vide University of Delhi vs Shashi Kiran &
Ors, C.A. No.003797-003809 of 2022, AIR 2022
SC 695].
It is pertinent to note here that CPF (called
University Provident Fund) Scheme being very
distinct from generally known CPF "The
Contributory Provident Fund Rules (India) 1962"
and fact that Petitioenr being (General Provident
Fund) GPF opted [e.g., Pay Slips for July 2006,
September 2006 as Annexure:1 Page:20] & even
after 6 months of prejudiced illegal sudden
retirement on 31.03.2007 as asked on 28.09.2007
for the resubmission (Receipt No.1490) of desired
3 sets of Forms for option "The Provident Fund
and Retirement Benefits of the employees of the
Tripura University Rules 1998", Photographs,
Documents, Papers etc. duly signed by Petitioner,
his Wife and 2 Witnesses and attested by
Registrar (Offg.) Dr. K.B. Jamatia, Petitioner been
deleteriously and wrongly denied shifting from
CPF System. [vide RP Para:3vii(b) Page:80; Letter
Paras: A(b) Page:5, A(1) Page:6, A(q) Page:9;
Annexure:1]
Reply No.5 of Your letter date 21.03.2023
That your imputation: ...."There is no provision
for re-imbursement for shifting to home town
after retirement under the rules of Tripura
University as a State University" being false,
devoid of truth deleteriously malicious [vide Item
No.9 of Annexure under G.T., F.D.'s
O.M.NO.F.2(18)-FIN/PAYCELL82 dated
10.12.1982 (T.A. Rules of the State of Tripura
Rule-8 Transfer T.A. on Retirement/Death: The
Govt. Servant in the event of retirement may be
allowed the freedom to settle down in a station of
Page 16 of 28
his choice & will be entitled to transfer TA subject
to amount being limited to what would have been
admissible to him had he proceeded to his
declared hometown)] and several representations
since 03.10.2007 to the Registrar, Tripura
University, seeking his immediate active guidance
regarding admissible Allowances, facilities etc. on
Retirement and non-availability of requisite
Forms with the University justifying impeccably
claims for reimbursements of expenditure of
Rs.98,029/- for shifting of Petitioner with his
family to their Hometown on retirement and
Rs.26,882/- against travel for aforesaid meeting
with Vice-Chancellor Sir on 21.06.2019 as
assured by him but all in vain. [vide RP
Pages:189-199,266-272]
1) As stated in Judgement and Order passed by
Hon'ble Single Judge on facing of difficulties
during Hearing held through Video conferencing
in WP(C)No.1361/2019, humbly praying for
allowing in the interests of Equitable, Fair, and
Natural Justice on circumstances, events, facts
etc. raised, Petitioner in Affidavit-in-Opposition to
your RP had responded justifying point-wise
averments with evidences therof at Para:3(a)(v)
Page:6 undeniably confirming that Your letter
dated 21.03.2023 being impeccable example of
severe abuse of the Judicial Systems and/or
Processes etc. and/or treating with hostile
discrimination, violations of the Indian Evidence
Act 1852, relevant Sections of the IPC and/or
CrPC (e.g., Sections-166,188,218); Fundamental
rights and other rights, Articles 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India; continuances of
perpetual torture, victimizations e.g. illegal
sudden retirement of Petitioner, withdrawal of
legitimate stepping up in his Pay, giving
illegitimate benefits to then Reader in Life
Science (Botany) Prof. Dr. Sangram Sinha despite
he being not only very much Junior to the
Petitioner but also a candidate for the same
causes in view of already stated averments and
following Noting and/or Decisions thereof as
stated in hereby attached [Annexure:2 Pages:20-
32 of this letter] scanned portions of relevant
Office File as Notes and follow-ups thereof and
following circumstances, events, facts and/or
Systems, Models etc.
a) Interest @7% on delayed Payment from
01.04.2007 to date of actual Payment:
Non-entitlement of Simple interest @7% per
annum from 01.04.2007 to the date of Payment of
Rs.51,62,074/- on 01.10.2019 and/or on the
Arrears of Pension for the period of 11 years from
2009 to 2019 (vide Grounds:Para-C of their WA)
as claimed by the University being highly
deleteriously prejudiced, fallacious, incorrect etc.
in view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Order in case of J.S. Cheema vs. State of Haryana,
2014(13) RCR(Civil) 355 wherein been held that
an employee will be entitled for the interest of an
amount which has been retained by the
Respondents without any valid justification.
Further, in case of S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana
and Anr., 2008(1) SC 331JT (2008) 3 SCC 44 been
held that even in absence of Statutory Rules,
Page 17 of 28
Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an
Employee can claim Interest under Part III of the
Constitution relying on Articles 14,19 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. ...... Also, in addition to
whatever other relief Writ Petitioner may have
whether by way of moving the Court under Article
215 of the Constitution of India, or otherwise,
Respondents shall be liable to make Payment of
Additional Penal Simple Interest at the rate of 2%
per Annum on the Sum due as on today on
account of such Interest for the delayed
disbursement.
Further, Payment of interest not only on the
delayed total amount of Payment of
Rs.51,62,074/- @7% per annum from date on
which it became due and payable on 01.04.2007
to date of payment on 01.10.2019 but also on
delayed actual total payable Amount arrived at
after its Computations on apposite Schemes
[vide: Ram Bilash Singh vs The State of Bihar &
Ors, Patna High Court CWJC No.1628/2019 dated
10.12.2020 and State of Kerala & Ors vs
Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 referred on
22.04.1997 by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court,
Agartala Bench, in Govt. Pensioners Association
vs. State of Tripura; this WP Para:2 Pages:57-58].
b) Surprisingly and shockingly you have not even
seriously gone through the Judgement and Order
of Hon'ble High Court of Tripura as stated by you
at para 5 of aforesaid contentious letter(Re: Brief
Meeting for 30minutes on 21.06.2019) wherein
everything was made clear but without producing
any sort/(s) of supporting Documents, Papers
etc. and unfortunately even leading Hon'ble
Single Judge to error in his Judgement & Order
passed on 2010.2020 rejecting Principal claims
despite his appreciable efforts trying to
understand and settle grievances of Petitioner
vis-à-vis Affidavits-in-Opposition of the Petitioner
to your WA and/or RP, letter dated 18.07.2019
and the aforesaid Letter dated 16.12.2022
wherein your deleteriously deliberate ulterior
motivated palpable intents been crystal clearly
exposed.
[Bold and Italic supplied by Petitioner]
c) Illegal sudden Retirement of Petitioner and his
drawing of Pension thereof:
Annexure:2a [vide: Page 21 of this letter]
Note
On 21.3.2007 O.S. noted
The Application dated 20.3.2007 of Head, Dept. of
Mathematics. TU, regarding service of Prof. K.
Sharma going to completed his service of 60
years on 16.03.2007
Submitted for kind perusal and decision by
authority.
To which on 21.3.06 concerned Supdt. Noted
Necessary Office Memo may be issued, if so
desired by the authority to Professor Sharma &
intimation to Finance officer, may treated most
urgent.
To which on 21.3.07 Registrar (Offg.) Dr. K. B.
Jamatia noted
Page 18 of 28
Dr. K. Sharma, Dept. of Mathematics may be
informed accordingly and pensionary forms may
also be sent to him.
To which on 21.03.07 V.C. noted
Action may be taken as per statute
For example,
Reply No.2 of Your letter dated 21.03.2023:
Succinctly put, evidently aforesaid Note
confirming deleterious sudden illegal retirement
of Petitioner by Memo No.F.2(14-32)-TU/87
dated 21.03.2007(just 10 days before 31.03.2007
without Pensionary and/or any sort(s) of Forms
as claimed herein) completely ignoring the
direction of then Vice-Chancellor for actions as
per Statutes despite having acute shortage of
teachers in the University and its Affiliated
Colleges creating further shortage of teachers
compromising with the quality of Education
imparted to the students violating the Tripura
University The First Statutes 1989, Tripura
University First Ordinances 1989 CHAPTER-III
Section 1.7 Retirement of Teachers providing for
issuance of Notice before the date of Retirement
and/or Re-employment of Teachers on
completion of 60 years therefor and also
Judgement & Order in case of Dr. Uma Agarwal vs
State of UP & Ors., INSC 89(22.03.1999) and
directions under U.G.C. Guidelines to overcome
the shortage of teachers, enhancement of age of
Retirement of University and College teachers
engaged in the class room teaching holding
teaching positions on regular appointment
against sanctioned posts on 15.03.2007 been
increased from the period of 62 years to 65 years
with further provision of extension up to age of
70 years.
Your imputations that "The Petitioner is not
entitled to Pension under CCS Pension Rules
1972..... West Bengal State Aided University
(Death cum Retirement) Scheme 1986" being
completely egregious, vexatious, deliberate,
deleterious, completely at variance with your
averment in WA and RP of adopting the "West
Bengal State Aided University (Death cum
Retirement) Scheme, 1999" and facts that "West
Bengal State Aided University (Death cum
Retirement Benefits) Scheme 1986" named "Old
Scheme 1986" applicable for Retirees from
01.01.1986 to 01.05.1999 introduced in 1991
which been subsequently replaced by the New
Schemes applicable for retirees from 02.05.1999
and/or 01.01.2006 by the Govt. of West Bengal.
It needs to note that Memo No.464(30)-Edn(U)
dated 13.08.2010 being "Modified OLD Scheme"
for those who retired in 1986 or those not eligible
for the "New Scheme 1999" introduced in 2000
but the University been on complete "Silence"
and/or "No response to representations of the
Petitioner" mode in this regard (e.g., dated
19.12.2008, 07.01.2009, 21.01.2009,
21.02.2009, 09.07.2009, 09.06.2010) as if
Petitioner retired in 1986 not 2007 which been
further corroborated by erroneous Sanctions,
Page 19 of 28
Computations and Payments of Arrears of Salary
and/or Pension vis-à-vis other allied Pensionary
and/or Terminal Benefits based on the Scheme
applicable for retirees under 3rd CPC not 6th CPC
therefor. In fact, the Petitioner had been
informed at Agartala during his visit to the
University by aforesaid letter dated 09.07.2010.
Petitioner had protested this letter by his
representation dated 03.08.2010.
Petitioner been deleteriously denied available
apposite Schemes under CCS Pension Rules 1972
or The Provident Fund and Retirement Benefits of
employees of Tripura University Rules 1998"
(vide Extraordinary Issue of Tripura Gazette
No.F.2(450-99)-DHE/UDCA/95 dated 19.07.2002)
and Govt. of Tripura Rules as amended from time
to time applicable for retirees from 01.01.2006 as
earlier & as in case of other retirees [vide RP
Pages:151-153].
Also, Pension, Arrear of Salary and/or
Pension and other Allied Pensionary and/or
Terminal Benefits had been neither Paid nor
Drawn after sudden illegal retirement on
31.03.2007 of Petitioner till 01.10.2019 as
fallaciously imputed in Your letter.
[vide: Letter dated 16.12.2022 Paras: A(m), A(n),
A(q) Pages: 8-9, Paras:A(x), A(y) Page:12]
d) Selection and subsequent Date of effect of
Promotion to the Post of Professor under CAS and
Fixation of Pay of Petitioner thereafter:
Annexure:2b [vide:Page:22-26 of this letter]
Note No.40:
On 1.3.07 O.S. noted,
Ref. letter dt. 14.11.2006. Dr. Sharma
was promoted to the post of Prof. w.e.f.
29.04.2004 under CAS. According to him the date
of Promotion under CAS i.e. 29.4.2004 is
arbitrary. Therefore, he requested to refix his
date of promotion to the post of Professor under
CAS w.e.f. 27.7.1997.
Submitted for his kind perusal and decision.
To which Registrar(Offg.) Dr. K. B. Jamatia noted
on 6.3.07,
How many times did he appear in the Interview
for the promotion to the post of Professor under
CAS? The details may be furnished.
To which O.S. noted,
Three times he appeared for interview. First time
in the year 2000. Second time in the year 2002
and the proposal was initiated on 7.2.02
(F.2(29)TU/99).
Third time in the year 2004 and the file was
initiated vide Note No.2 on 6.7.04
(F.2(29)TU/99).
And
Note No.43 Ref. Note No.40:
On 26.4.07 Registrar (Offg.) Dr. K. B. Jamatia
noted,
Page 20 of 28
Prof. K. Sharma appeared for promotion under
C.A.S. for 4 times namely in the year of 2001,
2002, 2003 and 2004. But he was rejected up to
the third time. Ultimately, he was selected for
promotion under CAS to the post of Professor on
16.10.2004.
But as he was rejected for some official
communication-gap, ultimately though selected in
2004, he was given effective date of promotion
w.e.f. 29.4.2003.
Thus, no fresh decision is required. He may be
communicated accordingly. And Pay may also be
fixed accordingly.
And
Note No.
[with a brief on Date of Stagnation of Increment
1.1.2004 wherein been noted,
P-434-Xrox
424, 423, 422, 410, 368, 366, 349
Date of Stagnation of increment 1.1.2004
(vide Note 37) & 35)
P-434-30-09-05- 29-04-2003
P-424-28.05.05-Date of Stagnation
01.01.04 not (1-4-04 1-1-04) vide Note 37, 35)
P-423-25-2-05-29-4-2004
P-410-1-06-04-Ph.D increment 1 only in place of
2 increments
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ext To Change ----------------------------------------------------------- 29-04-2004 27-07-97 Prof 29.07.07 P-29/04/04 27-07-97
On 11.10.2007 O.S. and Supdt noted,
a) Kindly refer to the representation dated 28.09.2007 as submitted by Dr. Kamala Kanta Sharma, Professor(Now retired), Department of Mathematics, Tripura University regarding the date of Promotion uner CAS vide F/A In the said representation it has been stated that "the date of effect of his promotion to the Post of Professor under CAS is repeatedly chosen arbitrarity. The present date of effect as 29-04- 2003 inplace of earlier date of effect 29.04.2004 is arbitrarily leading to not only injustish and denial of seniority etc. in view of the salient facts like date of stagnation of pay consider as 01-04- 2004 in place of 01-01-2004"
In this connection authority may kindly like to see that Dr. Kamala Kanta Sharma was promoted to the post of professor under CAS w.e.f. 29.04.2003 vide Memo at F/B.
b) Kindly refer to the application dt. 5.10.07 for grant of provisional 75% of Gratuity vide F/C. Submitted for kind decision.
To which A.R. noted, Page 21 of 28 A) The matter was decided vide Note No.43 and accordingly intimated on 21.05.07. B) May be considered.
Reg(offg.) For example, Reply No.3 of Your letter dated 21.03.2023 Denying the Petitioner (against whom there been no Allegations, Charges and/or Complaints etc. and rendered duties & services most efficiently & to full satisfactions and appreciations of everybody including his students & authorities concerned) legitimately due Promotion to Post of Professor under CAS and date of effect of Promotion from 29.04.2007 to 27.7.1997 therefor, Registrar(Offg.) Dr. K. B. Jamatia on 26.04.2007 at aforesaid Notes had vindictively notes wrong 4 appearances for Interview in place of 3 as noted by O.S. and undeniably illegal, discriminating "some official communication-gap"
committing Res Ipsa loquitur and/or Negligence per se; Defamation; violations of relevant Sections of IPC and/or CrPC (e.g., Sections 166, 188, 218); Fundamental rights & other rights, Articles 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India adopting and/or adapting innovative various forms of illegal Formation of "Pay Fixation Committee" of the Tripura University which decided "Date of Effect of Annual Increment, Promotion/Placement and subsequent Fixations of Amount of Basic Pay for Post of Professor under CAS and the Date of next Increment in the Basic Pay, Protection of Seniority to Post of Professor on Promotion/Placement, Pension and/or other allied Pensionary and/or Terminal benefits for Tripura University Teachers" with aforesaid the then Reader Dr. Sangram Sinha as a Member and Participant of the Meeting of aforesaid Committee [vide Notice of Pay Fixation Committee dated 10.03.2005 RP Page 149] Egregious vexatious deliberate ulterior motivated Administrative Decisions and/or Actions depriving Petitioner his legitimate Promotion to Post of Professor under CAS with irrational, illegal, untenable plea "some official communication-gap" seeking answer to the pertinent question, Can Promotion and/or Appointment etc. of a Candidate be rejected on plea "some official communication-gap"
leading to loss of dignity, Promotion and Seniority, denial of stepping up of Basic Pay on stagnation, date of effect of Promotion/Placement and/or Month of Annual increments etc.; If so, under which Act, Statutes, Ordinances etc. of Law? if not, compensate as claimed therefor?
(Corroboration from University needed) alongwith dues of Annual Increments in Basic Pay even in Year of Retirement by deliberate, prejudiced, egregious , malicious, illegal wrong fixations of dates of effect of Page 22 of 28 (α) Basic Pay and of legitimate Amount of Basic Pay thereof (β) Annual Increments changed from the 1st January to 1st April every year and (γ) Promotion/Placement etc. been done in such ways that the Petitioner not only became Junior most but also lost his Seniority vis-à-vis his legitimate due benefits of
(i) 1 extra increment for every 3 years of stagnation at time of fixations of Basic Pay,
(ii) 4 extra increments as relief for having Ph.D. degree,
(iii) Increment in Basic Pay even in Year of Retirement and ignoring Memo No.2415-F dt.27.03.2007 of Finance Branch, Govt. of West Bengal, allowing form 01.04.2007 merger of DA equal to 50% of existing Basic pay with Basic Pay distinctly shown as DP(Dearness Pay) countable for purpose of payment of DA.
(iv) Substantial Academic and Financial loss in Pay and/or other allied benefits therefor denying Applications and Principles of Natural Justice, Analytics, Causality and/or Decisions Making, Equity, Justice & treating with hostile discriminations violating Fundamental rights & other rights, Articles 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India.
[vide: WA Para:3(b)(iv-vi) Pages:6-7; RP Para: 3(a)(v) Pages: 6-15; WP Para: B(n) Page:15; Letter dated 16.12.2022 Paras:
A(o), A(q) at Page:9, Para: A(z) at Page:13] Fixation of Pay by Stepping up in meeting of Redressal of Grievances of Petitioner:
Annexure:2c [vide: Page: 27-32 of this letter] Note No.52:
On 27.11.98 O.S. noted, Resolution No.2 of the meeting of the Redressal of Grievances held on 18.9.98 regarding fixation of pay of Dr. K. K. Sharma is placed in the file of P/351.
Next course of action may kindly be instructed, if so desire.
To which on 27.11.98 Supdt. Noted, Fixation as per above may kindly be made by the F.C. To which on 27.11.98 Dy. Reg. Mr. K. B. Jamatia noted, We may refer it to F.C. before we issue notification To which on 30.11.98 Reg, Dr. D. K. Chaudhuri noted, Yes And Ref. Note No.52 Continued Ref. Note-25: O.S. at Para:7 noted, On the other hand, Dr. Sharma was appointed to the Post of Reader directly and he was not given any previous service benefits as he did not held any regular post (he was on contract service outside Tripura) At Para: 10 and onwards noted, Page 23 of 28 In view of the above, such case of stepping up is not permissible.
It is, therefore, proposed that the decision of the 21st Syndicate under Item No.16 may be modified while the proceedings and confirmed in the next meeting i.e. in the 72nd meeting. Submitted for consideration.
To which on 31.12.98 Dy. Reg. Mr. K. B. Jamatia noted, The references made by O.S. appear to be right. Under the circumstances, the case of stepping up of Dr. K. Sharma needs to be reviewed by the Syndicate as it was already approved by the Syndicate.
However, before placing it in the Syndicate we can refer it to Finance Branch for their comments/Suggestions.
To which on 1.1.99 Reg. Dr. Chaudhuri noted, Submitted to V/C for kind decision. To which on 4.1.99 V/C Prof. A. K. Chakraborty noted, Yes may be placed in next Finance Com. Reply No.7 of your letter dated 21.03.2023 Despite allowing others without appearing for interviews and having requisite qualifications for Appointment to the Post held by them and at aforesaid Note No.52 and Ref Note No.52 Continued Ref. Note-25 even claiming to-date of giving stepping up on stagnation of Pay of the Petitioner but been withdrawn on deleteriously prejudiced, frivolous, illegal "was on contract service outside Tripura" (Corroboration form University needed) counting of the continuing Past Service of 13 years of teaching Post- Graduate Classes and doing Research as Fulltime Lecturer during 1971-1978 in Kolkata; as "National Scholar (Govt. of India)" Awardee during 1978-1979 for the Research and Studies in the Theory and Applications of Computer Science & Technology, Formal Languages and Theory of Automata at Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands; as Pool Officer teaching in Department of Pure Mathematics, Calcutta University, Kolkata during 1979-1981; Lecturer at Kenyatta/Nairobi University, Nairobi, Kenya, on deputation during 1981-1984; Reviewer since 1981 for prestigious International Publishers & Journals e.g., Mathermatical Reviews of American Mathematical Society, JIMA, Springer Verlag etc. alongwith Manuscripts for publications as Research Papers and Books etc. therfor. It is pertinent to note here that Petitioner in his W.P.(C) No.303/2010, W.A.(C) No.07/2012, Rev. Pet No.08/2012 filed in the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, Agartala, Tripura, and SLPI before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India been against illegal retirement and denial of his reinstatement in service as per Rules applicable to him whereas WPINo.577/2019, WPINo.1361/2019 before Hon'ble Court of Tripura been for redress from the perpetual denial of equitable, fair, just delivery of legitimate claims and dues etc. pertaining to Administrative and Financial Systems and benefits thereon which Page 24 of 28 University contested by WANo.449/2020 & Rev.Pet No.07/2022 & disposed on 18.04.2022 directing University for payment of dues with interest @7%, erroneously rejecting Principal claims of Petitioner due to difficulties faced by Hon'ble Chief Justice of Tripura during hearing through Video Conference. Petitioner filed WPINo.850/2022 and been disposed with certain directions but severe abuse of Judicial Systems, Law, Orders, Procedures etc, and erroneous Sanctions, Payments and Calculations of Interest by University.
2) That Sanctions, Computations, and/or Sheets of Computations, Payments of Salary and/or Pension and/or Arrears thereof and/or other allied Pensionary and/or Terminal Benefits been based on devoid of truth, arbitrary, completely at variance, fabricated, fallacious, Schemes, Systems and or Models, Rules etc. whereas these should have been as shown below:
Calculation of Interest @7% p.a. w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to 30.09.2019 complying with the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, Agartala, Order dated 18.04.2022 in Rev. Pet. No.07/2022 Particulars Actual Amount(Rs.) Amount Received Amount Due(Rs.) (Rs.) Amount Total Interest Amount Interest Amount Interest Table-1: 414469 7675132 7999540 5162074 2210175 2513058 5918215 Arrear of Salary w.e.f.
01.01.2006
to
31.03.2007
Table-2: 142119
Arrear of
Pre-
Revised
Pension
w.e.f.
01.04.2007
to
31.03.2008
Table-3: 7174412
Arrear of
Revised
Pension
w.e.f.
01.04.2007
to
30.09.2019
Cash 517229
Equivalent
of Leave
Salary
Gratuity 687263
Total Amount Due 8431273
Table-1
Calculationof Arrear of Salary w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2007 Month Salary Due Salary Arrear Total Arrear Basic Pay CA Total Drawn Amount 01.01.2006 60340 750 61090 32000 29090 414469 01.02.2006 60340 750 61090 32000 29090 01.03.2006 60340 750 61090 32000 29090 01.04.2006 60340 750 61090 32716 28374 01.05.2006 60340 750 61090 32716 28374 01.06.2006 60340 750 61090 33738 27352 01.07.2006 60340 750 61090 33738 27352 01.08.2006 60340 750 61090 33738 27352 01.09.2006 60340 750 61090 33738 27352 01.10.2006 60340 750 61090 33738 27352 01.11.2006 60340 750 61090 33738 27352 01.12.2006 60340 750 61090 33738 27352 01.01.2007 60340 750 61090 34761 26329 01.02.2007 60340 750 61090 34761 26329 01.03.2007 60340 750 61090 34761 26329 Table-2 Calculation of Pre-Revised Pension from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 Month Pre-Revised Pension % of DR MR Pension Total 22900x50%=11450 DR Amount Pension Page 25 of 28 Amount 1 2 3 4 5 6=(2+4+5) 142119 01.04.2007 11450 0% - 250 11700 01.05.2007 11450 0% - 250 11700 01.06.2007 11450 0% - 250 11700 01.07.2007 11450 0% - 250 11700 01.08.2007 11450 0% - 250 11700 01.09.2007 11450 0% - 250 11700 01.10.2007 11450 0% - 250 11700 01.11.2007 11450 0% - 250 11700 01.12.2007 11450 0% - 250 11700 01.01.2008 11450 5% 573 250 12273 01.02.2008 11450 5% 573 250 12273 01.03.2008 11450 5% 573 250 12273 Table-3 Calculation of Arrear of Revised Pension w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to 30.09.2019 Period Total Pension Total % DR Total DR MR Total Total Months 30545= Pension of MR 61090x DR 50% A B C D E F G H I J=(D+G+I) 01/04/07 to 9 30545 274905 0 0 0 250 2250 277155 31/12/07 01/01/08 to 6 30545 183270 5 1528 9168 250 1500 193938 30/06/08 01/07/08 to 6 30545 183270 7 2139 12834 250 1500 197604 31/12/08 01/01/09 to 6 30545 183270 16 4888 29328 250 1500 214098 30/06/09 01/07/09 to 6 30545 183270 19 5804 34824 250 1500 219594 31/12/09 01/01/10 to 6 30545 183270 22 6720 40320 250 1500 225090 30/06/10 01/07/10 to 12 30545 366540 24 7331 87972 250 3000 457512 30/06/11 01/07/11 to 6 30545 183270 27 8248 49488 250 1500 234258 31/12/11 01/01/12 to 6 30545 183270 30 9164 54984 250 1500 239754 30/06/12 01/07/12 to 5 30545 152725 35 10691 53455 250 1250 207430 30/11/12 01/12/12 to 7 30545 213815 42 12829 89803 250 1750 305368 30/06/13 01/07/13 to 6 30545 183270 47 14357 86142 250 1500 270912 31/12/13 01/01/14 to 6 30545 183270 57 17411 104466 250 1500 289236 30/06/14 01/07/14 to 6 30545 183270 64 19549 117294 250 1500 302064 31/12/14 01/01/15 to 6 30545 183270 69 21076 126456 250 1500 311226 30/06/15 01/07/15 to 6 30545 183270 74 22604 135624 250 1500 320394 31/12/15 01/01/16 to 6 30545 183270 79 24131 144786 250 1500 329556 30/06/16 01/07/16 to 6 30545 183270 83 25353 152118 250 1500 336888 31/12/16 01/01/17 to 3 30545 91635 88 26880 80640 250 750 173025 31/03/17 01/04/17 to 30 30545 916350 125 38182 1145460 250 7500 2069310 30/09/19 Total 150 4581750 7174412 Reply No.3 of Your letter dated 21.03.2023 Evidently in view of circumstances, events, facts, documents, papers etc. stated in the aforesaid Sections, Paras etc. your imputations "That it is crystal clear...... upto the age of 70 years." Been Page 26 of 28 not only devoid of truth, torturous, defamatory, highly selective and prejudiced, determindedly harming thereof apart from those already stated Principal claims and other allied claims, dues, privileges etc. of Petitioner impeccably demand your responses to pertinent questions therefore vis-à-vis corroboration on the Comprehensive Decisions and/or Inferences (both necessary and sufficient) on Deductions; Definitions and/or Meanings; Characteristics; Specifications; true Interpretations, Validity; Import; Scopes;
Limitations and any other allied of the Conspectus of Elements, Incidents, Flows of the "Pension", "It was made clear to you", "Under Proper Acknowledgement" and "Official Communication- gap" from the University.
[vide: Letter Para: A(k) Page:7, Paras: A(v), A(w), A(aa) Pages:11-12 & 14] C) Under the circumstances without prejudice to Fundamental Rights and other Rights, Privilages, Claims, Dues etc. of petitioner it being humbly requested your most immediate kind perusal, favourable Orders and/or Actions, Compliances thereof relating to aforesaid Administrative and Financial Systems and benefits, Sanctions, Computations, Payments of Pension and other allied Pensionary and/or Terminal Benefits based on GFR 2005, FR & SR, CCS(Pension) Rules 1972, CCS (Gratuity) Rules 1972 as amended from time to time and payment of Interest as Ordered by Hon'ble High Court of Tripura vis-à-vis other already overdue Claims Payments, Dues etc. redressing grievances, settlements and deliverances of their Fundamental Rights and other Rights, Natural Justice, Equity, Privileges etc. thereof saving Petitioner and his family from serious conditions and/or situations of Life and Liberty & continuing perpetual Denials including expeditious payment of aforesaid Rs.84,31,273/- (Rupees Eighty-four Lakh Thirty-one Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-three) only within a week of receiving this representation failing which the necessary appropriate available steps under law will be initiated.
With thanks and regards, Yours sincerely, (K. Sharma) Encl.: True copies of Annexures as stated Total 32(Thirty-two) Pages
12. But according to Learned Senior Counsel, since the subject matter of dispute has already been resolved by the respondent-Tripura University in pursuance of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble High Court, so, nothing remains for the respondent-Tripura University to take any further action on the said representation, because by the communication dated Page 27 of 28 21.03.2023 all information have been communicated to the petitioner by the respondent-Tripura University. So, at this stage, there is no scope to entertain the petition filed, as because it has got no legal basis in the eye of law.
13. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the time of hearing of argument fairly submitted that their appearance is formal in nature, so, they do not like to submit any further input on this matter, since, the matter is already been resolved by the respondent No.3 and urged for dismissal of this writ petition.
14. I have heard the petitioner at length and Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. It appears that the present petitioner has filed so many writ petitions before the High Court as discussed above and in pursuance of the direction of the High Court, the respondent No.3 by order dated 21.03.2023 has intimated the petitioner, the action taken by them on his grievance. Later on, no further action was taken by the respondent No.3 on the subsequent representation dated 20.05.2020 as the action has already taken by the respondent No.3 and Learned Senior Counsel Mr. D. Bhattacharjee for the respondent No.3 in course of hearing, fairly shared the same view before this Court. So, I find no scope to consider the writ petition filed by the petitioner, as the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court with any justified grounds for further interference.
15. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed being devoid of merit but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order is passed as to costs.
Page 28 of 28However, it is expected that since the petitioner served under respondent No.3, so, a communication may be made to him by the University in respect of his representation dated 20.05.2023.
With this observation, the case is thus dispose of on contest.
Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.
JUDGE MOUMITA Digitally signed by MOUMITA DATTA DATTA Date: 2024.06.26 17:42:03 +05'30' Deepshikha