IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14889 of 2005 PROF.YUVARAJ DEVA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03. 28.07.2008 Petitioner was a former Director of A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, a pioneer Institute in its own kind at one point of time. It has fallen in bad times for the petitioner as well as the Institute which is evident from the relief which the petitioner is praying for in the present writ application. There are primarily three reliefs on which the petitioner wants direction. One is with regard to payment of arrears of salary and allowances at par with pay scale available to the Vice Chancellor of a University in terms of a decision taken by the University Grants Commission. It is not in dispute that the post of Director of Institute is at par with the Vice Chancellor of a University. The second prayer is for payment of interest penal may be along with compensation for delayed payment. The third prayer is with regard to leave salary, contribution and pension. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent – Institute where they do not deny the basic fact that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary at par with the revision with regard to other Vice Chancellors. A decision has also been taken by the Board of Governors on 6.11.2007 to pay the same in terms of Resolution No.9 which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit. But they dispute the entitlement of the petitioner to any penal interest as well as leave salary, contribution and pension. With regard to leave salary and pension they say that petitioner was on - 2 - deputation and it is not part and parcel of the service condition. He is already drawing his benefits from his parent institution. From the above claim and counter claim the Court hereby directs the respondent – Director, A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna to pay to the petitioner the arrears of pay, salary and allowances in terms of Resolution dated 21.11.2007 on and before 31st October, 2008. In so far as other two reliefs are concerned, in view of the discussions made above, the Court is not inclined to extend the benefit to the petitioner. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)