IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.196 of 2005 MUSAFIR YADAV, son of Shri Meldhani Yadav, resident of village Kumhrar, Goaltoli, P.S. Agamkuan, District- Patna. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Secretariat Building, Patna-1. 3. The Director of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Secretariat Building, Patna-1. 4. Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya, through its Registrar. 5. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya. 6. The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya. 7. The Principal College of Commerce, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 (deleted). ... Respondents. ----------- 15- 14.7.2010 Heard Mr. Najmul Hoda for the petitioner, Mr. Shankar Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.5 for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Mr. Viveka Nand Kumar for the respondent nos.5 and 6. The petitioner superannuated from the services of the Magadh University completing 60 years of age on 31.1.2004, while he was functioning as Assistant. He preferred the present writ petition for a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of the post-retirement benefits admissible to him. Major portion of his dues have been paid to him during the pendency of the present proceedings. 2 2. By order dated 24.2.2010, learned counsel for the University was directed to seek instructions as to the following dues which, according to the petitioner, remain unpaid: (i) Leave encashment beyond 180 days; (ii) Amount of deferred dearness allowance with interest. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We shall first deal with the question of payment of leave encashment. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to leave encashment for a total period of 240 days, whereas payment has been made to him for 180 days only. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University submits that the petitioner’s entitlement for leave encashment was up to maximum of 180 days. He relies on paragraph 2 of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of Prof. Surendra Bahadur Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2006 (4) P.L.J.C. 369 which, according to him, states the correct position. The same is reproduced hereinbelow: “2. One of the contentions is how much leave an employee working in the University 3 or in a constituent College is entitled to encash upon his retirement. It appears that originally 180 days leave could be encashed. The same was subsequently enhanced to 240 days leave by reason of a decision of the Government dated 25.12.1986. Thereafter, the same was increased to 300 days by yet another Notification dated 30th July, 2005 issued by the Government. In relation to the last Notification a writ petition is pending and, accordingly, I have decided not to go into that aspect of the matter.” The contention advanced on behalf of the University could not have been more self-defeating. It is evident on a perusal of the portion of the judgment extracted hereinabove that the State Government had enhanced the entitlement of the University employees from the erstwhile 180 days to 240 days by decision of the State Government of 25.12.1986. The admitted position is that the petitioner superannuated from the services of the University with effect from 31.1.2004. The said notification of 25.12.1986 is obviously applicable in the petitioner’s case. It is accordingly directed that the Magadh University shall ensure payment of the remaining sixty days to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 11 (eleven) per cent with effect from 1.2.2004, till the date of payment. 4. As to the second grievance, the petitioner claims that a further sum of Rs.9276/- is payable to him towards 4 deferred dearness allowance. This amount has been arrived at on the basis of a detailed calculation of the authorities (Annexure-3 to the rejoinder to Counter affidavit on behalf of the petitioner), issued under the signature of the Principal and the Bursar of the college, and two other functionaries. The University did not file any affidavit in opposition in spite of the order dated 24.2.2010. In other words, the statement made in the said rejoinder read with Annexure-3 binds the University. In substance, the University is bound to make payment of the balance amount of Rs.9276/- towards deferred dearness allowance admissible to the petitioner. Let the University make payment of the same along with statutory/contracted rate of interest, failing which at the rate of 11 (eleven) per cent, from the date of deposits till the date of payment. 5. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. The Registrar of the University shall ensure implementation of the order expeditiously. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/