IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1206 of 2005 Dr.Braj Nath Prasad, son of Kapildeo Prasad, resident of Village & P.O. Taraiya, P.S. Taraiya, District-Saran, Chapra … Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Jai University, Chapra, through the Vice- Chancellor 3. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Saran Chapra 4. The In-charge Principal, D.A.V. College, Siwan, District-Siwan 5. Dr. Bramhachari Prabhu Nath Pathak (Name of father not known to the appellant), In-charge Principal, D.A.V. College, Siwan, District-Siwan .. Respondents-Respondents with LPA No.838 of 2005 1. Jay Prakash University, Chapra through its Vice- Chancellor, Dak Bunglow Road, Chapra 2. The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra, Dak Bunglow Road, Chapra .. Respondents-Appellants Versus 1. Dr.Braj Nath Prasad, son of Shri Kapil Deo Prasad, resident of Village+ P.O.-Taraiya, P.S. Taraiya, District-Saran (Chapran) 2. In-charge, Principal, D.A.V. College, Siwan 3. Dr. Brahamchari Prabhu Nath Pathak, name of father not know In-charge Principal, D.A.V. College,Siwan 4. The State of Bihar … Respondents ================================================================= Appearance In L.P.A. No. 1206 of 2005 For the Appellant :- Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Advocate For J.P. University :- Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate In L.P.A. No.838 of 2005 For the appellant :- Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate For Private Respondent:- Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Advocate ================================================================ 7 12.08.2011 These appeals have been filed 2 against the order dated 08.07.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7282 of 2003. The petitioner-appellant herein Professor of DAV College, Siwan. Some dispute arises with regard to his posting as a Professor, In-charge of the college and also the seniority with the respondent no.5. Earlier, petitioner had approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.11566 of 2001 and the same was dismissed on 21.09.2001 and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner seems to have been aggrieved by the action of the college In-charge as he was working as a Professor in the Department of Chemistry but however, he was not allowed to work as such by the Professor In-charge as he was inimical to him. He filed the writ petition with a prayer to pay his arrears of salary w.e.f. February, 2001 till he has superannuated i.e. on 31.10.2003 on the ground that respondent no.5, who was Professor In-charge, did not permit him to work on earlier occasion, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 3 A Committee was constituted on the direction of the court by the University to look into the mater, but it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the Committee also relied upon the report submitted by respondent no.5 to the effect that the appellant has not worked. Learned counsel vehemently argued that such report cannot be relied upon. The learned Single Judge having heard the parties and gone into the merits of the case allowed the writ petition with a direction to the University to pay arrears of salary since 05.02.2002 till the petitioner got superannuated i.e. on 31.10.2003 taking into account 05.02.2002 as a date of first representation of the petitioner as mentioned in Annexure-E. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that petitioner was not allowed to work in the disputed period by respondent no.5 as he was inimical to him and the Enquiry Committee also relied on the report submitted by respondent no.5. 4 Learned counsel for the University, who is also an appellant in L.P.A. No.838 of 2005 has opposed such contention stating that on earlier occasion also the petitioner come to this Court and for the first time he made a representation on 05.02.2002 by puttingforth his grievance that he was not allowed to work by respondent no.5. hence, that date was taken into consideration as the date of payment of the salary. It is also further contended that the enquiry committee’s report cannot be found fault with as the same was done after inspection by the Enquiry Committee. This is a case in which there is disputed question of fact to the effect that there is enmity between the petitioner and the respondent no.5. But however, the fact remains that respondent no.5 has never allowed the petitioner to work as has been observed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner putforth his grievance that on 05.02.2002 he was not allowed to work. Even though, he had also approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing a writ petition i.e., C.W.J.C. No. 13101 of 2002 5 but this court did not grant relief as sought for by him, however, a direction was given to the University to consider the matter. In view of the above fact, as the question remain undisputed that the petitioner-appellant herein was not allowed to work, we do not delve into the merits of such circumstances. But in view of the fact that he was not allowed to work, we are of the opinion that equity requires that the University can be directed to pay the pension for the period upto 04.02.2002, taking into consideration the date of first representation on 05.02.2002. We also make it clear that as the petitioner got superannuated on 31.10.2003, it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the University to pay the pension and other benefits as also arrears of salary, as is directed by the learned Single judge that he is entitled for the aforesaid benefit is for the period as stated supra, if already not paid, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6 With the above modification in the order of learned Single Judge L.P.A. No. 1206 of 2005 is disposed of and consequently, L.P.A. No.838 of 2005 is also disposed of. Ashwini (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)