IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3712 of 2005 BALRAM SINGH son of Late Pati Singh, resident of village-Morsarai, P.S.-Seasagarh, District-Rohtas. Versus 1. THE VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, Arrah through its Registrar. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University at Arra 3. The Magadh University at Bodh-Gaya, Gaya, through its Registrar. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University at Bodh-Gaya, Gaya. 5. The Principal, Sri Shankar College, Sasaram. ----------- 11 08.03.2010 Heard Mr. Tara Nath Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Ms. Sujata Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Veer Kunwar singh University and Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Magadh University. The petitioner was initially appointed on 1.3.1974 in Sri Shankar College, Sasaram which at the relevant time was affiliated to the Magadh University. The said college was made constituent unit of the Magadh University with effect from 1.9.1980. In the year, 1982 a separate University was carved out from the Magadh University which came to be known as Veer Kunwar Singh University and this college became a constituent unit of the Veer Kunwar 2 Singh University with effect from 1982. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader under the notification dated 20.3.1997 issued by the Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University with effect from 1.2.1985. The petitioner superannuated while holding the post of Reader with effect from 31.1.2004. Upon only part payment being made towards post retiral and other dues, the writ petitioner moved this Court for payment of his post retiral and other dues. The petitioner also raised a grievance regarding the period of qualifying service counted by the respondent University in calculation of his final pension. It was submitted that though the petitioner was appointed on 1.3.1974 but the respondent authorities of the University had fixed the pension treating his qualifying service only with effect from September, 1982. It was stated that University had ignored the service rendered by the petitioner with effect from his appointment on 1.3.1974 until September 1982. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the action of the University in treating his qualifying service 3 for the purpose of pension only with effect from September 1982, was wholly arbitrary and that they should have counted his entire service right since his initial appointment on 1.3.1974 until his retirement on 31.1.2004 as qualifying service for the purpose of fixation of his pension and pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to a show cause filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, the Vice Chancellor of the University with particular reference of Annexure-A thereof, submits that though the University has admitted his date of appointment on 1.3.1974 but while calculating the length of service they have arbitrarily mentioned 22.5 years in place of 29 years and nine months. He further submits that this act of the University is not in accordance with law. Several counter affidavits/ show causes were filed during the course of proceeding demonstrating the payment of the admissible amount of the retiral dues and other dues found admissible to the petitioner. The issue as it stands today is that admittedly the entire post retiral and other dues as found admissible to the petitioner has 4 been paid to him and the only issue which remains pending is whether the action of the University in ignoring the service rendered by the petitioner with effect from the date of his appointment on 1.3.1974 until September 1982, was correct and has any lawful support. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Registrar of the University on 11.5.2009 and the reason for denial of the service rendered by the petitioner treating the same as qualifying service is found at Annexure-A thereof in which it is stated that as the deductions towards provident fund of the petitioner was only with effect from 1.9.1982 hence the length of service of the petitioner was calculated one year before the said date i.e. with effect from September 1981. The reasons assigned by the respondent authorities in not counting the service rendered by the petitioner from 1.3.1974 up to 31.8.1981 is only taken to be rejected. There is no other reason assigned by the authorities in ignoring the valid service rendered by this petitioner. It is even more surprising since whereas the authorities themselves have taken into consideration the said period of service 5 rendered by this petitioner for the purpose of conferring him with the promotion to the post of Reader on completion of 10 years of service i.e. with effect from 1.2.1985, they have chosen to deny him the benefit of said period for the purpose of calculation of his pension. This Act of the University is patently arbitrary. Having given anxious consideration to the entire matter and upon consideration of rival contention and perusing the materials on record, I come to an irresistible conclusion that the decision of the University in ignoring the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 1.3.1974 to 31.8.1981 for the purpose of calculation of his pension, is arbitrary, without plausible explanation and thus not sustainable. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to recalculate the pension of the petitioner after counting his entire service with effect from 1.3.1974 until his superannuation on 31.1.2004 as qualifying service in accordance with law and refix his pension and pensionary benefits and provide the consequential benefits arising 6 there from in the form of arrears etc. within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In so far as U.G.C. arrears are concerned, the University would take expeditious steps for payment of the said arrears considering that the petitioner stands retired on 31.1.2004 and make payment thereof preferably within a period of six months from today. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )