IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16631 of 2008 ***** Mithilesh Sinha, wife of Late Rajendra Prasad Chakrapani, Resident of I.T.I., Jaiprakash Nagar, Road No.5, Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah, District-West Champaran. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, through the Registrar, B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Finance Advisor, B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Finance Officer, B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The State of Bihar. …. …. Respondents ----------- 3. 25.3.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. The basic facts, which has been urged on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner’s husband, late Rajendra Prasad Chakrapani, was initially appointed as a Lecturer on temporary basis in the Department of Chemistry. His services were subsequently regularized in the year 1984 and he was promoted to the post of a Reader on 21.1.1987. The husband of the petitioner unfortunately died prematurely on 14.1.1998 while still in service. It is not disputed that at the relevant time the husband of the petitioner had opted for group appendix ‘B’ as an option for settlement of retiral dues which was contributory provident fund-cum-gratuity scheme. The Court need not delve into all other details which are pleaded in the writ application but it is not disputed that some time in the year 2008 petitioner approached the Vice-Chancellor of B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur to consider payment of family pension etc. treating the case of her husband under group ‘A’ scheme in terms of - 2 - article 3 and 4 of the Triple Benefit Scheme of the retirement benefit Statute, 1982. The reason why the petitioner was advised or provoked to make such a claim was that a large number of disputes had traveled to the High Court with regard to the kind of scheme to which the University Teachers or employees would be offered after their retirement. The Court has the benefit of some decisions which have been rendered in this regard and, therefore, need not adjudicate into the matter in detail, the judgments which the Court must take note of is the case of one Vyas Narain Singh v. B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University & Ors., 2007(1) PLJR 241 and a recent decision, through unreported, wich is the case of Upendra Narain Singh v. B.R.Ambedkar Bihar University & Ors. C.W.J.C. No. 13022 of 2005 dated 3.12.2008. For the reasons assigned and the ratio laid down by the two decisions no doubt, prima facie, the claim made by the petitioner seems to be an afterthought but the fact stands that the High Court has held that in the given facts and circumstances which prevailed in the University there was a deeming fiction and the question of applicability of the benefit under scheme ‘A’ was accruable. Learned counsel for the respondent University submits that once the retiral dues of the petitioner’s husband was settled years ago she may not be entitled to or be allowed to claim such a benefit. He submits that certain decisions have been taken even by the Hon’ble Chancellor and the State Government in this regard where they have taken a stand that no reopening is permissible after 20.12.2005. This is the primary reason why the respondent University is not willing to accept or entertain the claim - 3 - made by the petitioner. The submission made on behalf of the respondent University based on Annexure-B and C may not resolve the dispute or the claim made by the petitioner because if this Court readily accepts the stand of the University taken in this regard the same will have the effect of nullifying the two judicial orders passed by this Court, if not dilute it judicial propriety, does not allow this Court to do so. In view of the above the writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the Vice-Chancellor that keeping in mind the two decisions noted in the earlier part of the order he shall pass an appropriate order on the claim of the petitioner for retiral dues. The decision will be rendered by the Vice-Chancellor within a period of three months and the consequence thereafter shall flow in favour of the petitioner. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)