Patna High Court - Orders
Tapan Kumar Chatterjee vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 21 August, 2014
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15072 of 2011
======================================================
Tapan Kumar Chatterjee S/O Late Ganesh Chandra Chatterjee R/O
Mohalla- Nageshwar Colony, House No.- 28, East Boring Road, Police
Station- Buddha Colony, Distt.- Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary and Commissioner, Department
of Human Resource Development, Higher Education, Old Secretariat,
Patna
2. The Chancellor, Patna University, Raj Bhawan, Patna
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Patna University, Patna
4. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar
Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta
For the University : Mr. Digwijay Singh
Mr. B J Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
ORAL ORDER
4 21-08-2014The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to pay him statutory and other interest on delayed payment relating to retiral benefits and dues.
2. The short facts are that the petitioner was a teacher in Patna University and was holding the post of a Reader in the Department of Geology. He decided to resign from his service on 16th November, 1994, which was accepted on 19th June, 1995 effective from 1st July, 1994. When the petitioner claimed his pension and post retiral dues, the University refused to oblige him for many a reasons including the fact that resignation from service 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.15072 of 2011 (4) dt.21-08-2014 2/5 amounts to forfeiture of past service. However, the matter did not rest at that. Petitioner chose to file writ petition before the High Court which was registered as CWJC No. 4199 of 1997. After a detailed hearing and the interpretation given to the previous provisions of the Statute governing such matters, the learned single Judge held as under in para 15 of the said decision dated 27th January, 1998, a copy of which is Annexure-1.
"I, accordingly, direct the respondents to determine the aforesaid question and to pay the salary of the petitioner to which the petitioner is entitled under the law for the aforesaid period. The University will also release and pay the admitted gratuity and leave encashment amount in favour of the petitioner. If the salary or part thereof in question is curtailed, the respondents will have to give reason and to communicate the same to the petitioner. The benefits are to be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this judgment."
3. The University not being satisfied with the said decision filed LPA No. 425 of 1998, which came to be finally decided on 27.02.2007 against the University. SLP was moved thereafter but in the meantime, a contempt application was moved by the petitioner. University authorities, therefore, in anticipation of a 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.15072 of 2011 (4) dt.21-08-2014 3/5 final decision in the SLP decided to make payment to the extent directed by the learned single Judge in para 15 of his order.
4. The SLP was subsequently dismissed and the matter did rest at that. In normal course of things, the dispute should have rested after due payment to the petitioner and settlement of his claim, but the petitioner being emboldened by the previous two decisions has come back to the Court for a limited prayer. He wants a direction for payment of statutory and other interest because the University delayed settlement of his rightful claim from the date of his resignation till the date of payment.
5. The question which requires to be considered by this Court is whether such writ application is a bona fide writ application or is an effort for windfall gain by the petitioner in the above noted background.
6. The stand of the petitioner is that he was entitled to his rightful claim after his resignation which was not settled by the University and delay in litigation leading to non- payment cannot be attributed to him. He has been denied what was his due for a long period of time.
7. Such a plea of the petitioner could have merited consideration provided claim of the petitioner was an open and shut case. With respect to the learned counsel, in the normal 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.15072 of 2011 (4) dt.21-08-2014 4/5 service jurisprudence, petitioner would not be entitled to any other benefit, may be except salary, GPF etc due to a voluntary resignation tendered by him but on the interpretation given to the Statute governing the University, the learned single Judge opined in para 15 from where his right was established. If the University decided to move the appellate jurisdiction because there was an arguable case on behalf of the University, it was a legitimate right of the University which was exercised. The delay in the decision rendered by the Division Bench was not attributable to the University. Therefore, it can not be said that there was deliberate effort on the part of the University to pay the petitioner what was directed by the learned single Judge.
8. At the most petitioner would have a case for payment of statutory or other interest on delayed settlement after the judgment was rendered by the Division Bench on 27.2.2007 and the payment made on 2.8.2010 because filing of a SLP and its dismissal and non-interference surely compels this Court to lean in favour of the petitioner to the extent that University will pay the statutory interest to the petitioner on the payments already made between 28.2.2007 and 1.8.2010. So far as other payments are concerned he will be paid simple interest of 5 per cent for the said period in question.
5 Patna High Court CWJC No.15072 of 2011 (4) dt.21-08-20145/5
9. Writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) R.K.Pathak/-
U