Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is also argued that the representation of the petitioner dated 08.02.2016 made before the Registrar was entertained vide his letter no. 953/16 dated 01.06.2016 and communicated to the petitioner that the University is receiving grant in respect of only two teachers, namely, Dr. Awadhesh Tiwary and Sri Sachchidanand Mishra who are being paid their salary and while making such communication, the University is said to have ignored the letter of the Government dated 27.10.2011 whereby the funds were released in favour of three teachers out of which the petitioner was also one of them, whose Patna High Court CWJC No.3653 of 2019 dt.19-12-2025 name was also recommended by the College Service Commission. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner was made to retire and accordingly he submitted relevant documents for payment of his due arrears salary and retiral benefits in the background of the fact that he had been working on his post with full integrity, honesty and utmost satisfaction, which was also not paid any heed. The University in the light of statue framed by the Hon'ble Chancellor dated 15.01.2014 came out with a Notification contained in Memo No. 5447-5481/14 dated 22.07.2014 in respect of retiral benefit payable to staffs of affiliated College w.e.f 31.08.2010, even though the issues of this petitioner could not be addressed.

9. Learned counsel next submits that the University in view of the amendment of Bihar State Universities Act, 2015 prepared a list of 30 Teachers + 37 Teachers in total of 67 teachers, who were appointed in affiliated colleges without recommendation of College Service Commission for their regularization by the Selection Committee, in which the petitioner's name was also incorporated and the petitioner made objection against such consideration of his matter by the Selection Committee, as he was already recommended by the College Service Commission and the authority of the University Patna High Court CWJC No.3653 of 2019 dt.19-12-2025 without appreciating the fact that pursuant to the recommendation of College Service Commission, the Governing Body had already confirmed the service of the petitioner w.e.f 26.01.1980 and still, the Additional Secretary vide Memo No. 1726 dated 23.09.2018 rejected the proposal of the University dated 19.05.2018, whereas the rejection order passed by the Additional Secretary with respect to the list prepared for regularization by the University dated 19.05.2018, is not applicable to the petitioner, in view of the fact that his name was already recommended by the College Service Commission, which had the statutory authority to make such recommendation and further the approval had already been granted to such recommendation which could not have been tinkered by the University and as such subsequent action was unwarranted insofar as this petitioner is concerned and in humble submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Accordingly, the authorities are required to be issued appropriate directions for payment of arrears of salary and as also to settle the retiral benefits as applicable in law.

Although, such a submission has been made before this Court and in the counter-affidavit the orders impugned do not reflect such a reason. Be that as it may, this Court is satisfied that there is no difference mentioned in the provision added to Section 57(A) vide notification dated 27th August 2015 and no distinction can be drawn between the teachers who are appointed without recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission for the purpose of scrutinizing their cases or for the purpose of releasing the grant. Such an approach adopted by the State Government has resulted in unnecessary litigation before this Court. The action of the State is found to be wanting and in view of above, the impugned orders passed by the respondent dated 23.09.2018 as well as the orders passed subsequently dated 06.10.2022 by the Director are quashed and set aside with further direction to release the grant to the concerned University for further distribution of salary and other allowances to the petitioners. Those who have retired shall also be granted their due pensionary benefits in terms of the U.G.C. pay scales. The exercise shall be conducted positively within a period of one month from today."

61. From the above, it is quite clear that the impugned order passed by the Respondents vide Memo No. 1726 dated 23.09.2018 as well as consequential orders dated 06.10.2022 passed by the Director, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar in the case of Balram Pandey (supra) have been quashed with a further direction to release grant to the concerned Universities for further distribution of salary and other benefits to the petitioner and with respect to those who have retired shall also be granted their dues pensionary benefits in terms of UGC pay-scale by conducting positive exercise within the time frame so allowed.