IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6879 of 2010 1. AMITABH CHOUDHARY, S/O LATE ANIRUDH PRASAD CHOUDHARY, R/O PLOT NO.3, VIVEKANAND PARK,NEW PATLIPUTRA COLONY,P.S.- PATLIPUTRA COLONY,DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. ARUNABH CHOUDHARY, S/O LATE ANIRUDH PRASAD CHOUDHARY, R/O PLOT NO.3, VIVEKANAND PARK,NEW PATLIPUTRA COLONY,P.S.- PATLIPUTRA COLONY,DISTRICT-PATNA. 3. SUDESHNA PRIYADARSHINI, D/O LATE ANIRUDH PRASAD CHOUDHARY, R/O PLOT NO.3, VIVEKANAND PARK,NEW PATLIPUTRA COLONY,P.S.- PATLIPUTRA COLONY,DISTRICT-PATNA. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,GOVERNEMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. 3. THE REGISTRAR,PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF BIHAR, BIR CHAND PATEL MARG,PATNA. ----------- 06 12.10.2010 This case exemplifies the insensitivity of the Patna University towards its teachers. Petitioners’ mother died on 08.07.2005 in harness as the Head of the Department of Political Science, Patna University. At the time of her death in the year 2005, there was still to be paid to her over about Rs.6 lakhs towards arrears of salary as a consequence of revision of pay scale as per U.G.C. norms. After her death, the father of the petitioners also tried to persuade the University for payment of arrears but unfortunately he also died on 27.02.2010. Petitioners, being sons and daughter and the sole heirs of their late mother and father finding themselves totally helpless in the matter, filed this writ petition for the claim of their mother as against the University. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it was - 2 - admitted that Rs.5,92,523 was due to be paid by the University but how this was calculated was not disclosed. This Court noted this fact and directed the University to give detail accounts and also noticed the University as to its liability to pay interest in the matter and delayed payment. There was yet another dispute which remained unresolved that was with regard to encashment of earned leave. As per petitioners’ stand University sanctioned payment of earned leave for 300 days but what had been paid was only with regard to 180 days with no explanation why? While ordering filing of further affidavit by the University, this Court by order dated 30.08.2010 clearly noted that all payments must be made now in the account of the petitioners (which the petitioners had already disclosed to the University), as the earlier account which stood in the name of their late parents stood closed on account of their death. Today, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in which details of accounts have been given. The break up of Rs.5,92,523/- has been given with regard to earned leave. It is stated that petitioners’ mother died in the year 2005. At that time the encashment of earned leave was permitted only for 180 days, this was enhanced to 300 days in the year 2008, which would not apply in case of the petitioners. In respect of notice for payment of interest, it was stated that no interest is payable as University makes payment as and when it receives from the State Government. Heard the parties and with their consent the writ - 3 - petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. After considering the aforesaid facts, so far as payment of arrears of salary is concerned, from the chart as submitted by the University along with the supplementary counter affidavit, it would be seen that about Rs.1.31 lakhs is due since 1998, about Rs.1.34 lakhs is due since 1999 and about 1.03 lakhs is due from 2000. It goes on in diminishing values up to the date of death of petitioners’ mother in the year 2005. Thus, the total liability on account of basic pay itself from 1998 to 2005, as admitted, is about Rs.6.21 lakhs. The excess DA paid is adjusted there from amount to Rs.49,000/- and payable HRA is Rs.26,823. Thus, the liability is about Rs.5.92 lakhs. Petitioners state that there is still a difference of about Rs.90,000/-. For this, the petitioners would make representation to the Finance Officer of the University, who would deal with the matter and communicate its decision to the petitioners within 15 days of the representation being filed. Now, coming to the aspect of the earned leave. In my view, University is correct as the increased earned leave entitlement is in the year 2003 and the petitioners’ mother died in the year 2005, she is not entitled to the increased earned leave. This is subject to noone else under similar circumstances be paid the increased earned leave encashment by the University. If petitioners are able to point out that other similarly situated persons have been paid the increased leave encashment, petitioners would be entitled to make representation in that regard also to the Finance Officer of the University, who would - 4 - ensure payment of increased amount of leave encashment as made to the others. Now, coming to the aspect of the interest. From the statement as appended by the University itself and discussed above, it would be seen that the payments were due for decade. To say that for this inordinate delay in making payment, the petitioners are not entitled to any interest or the University is not liable to pay any interest, would be a mockery in this situation. Petitioners were never at fault. Money value has been substantially eroded and can only be partially compensated by paltry interest @ 12% per annum. That would be payable from the time payment was due to the time payment is actually made and that would have to be paid by the University to the petitioners. Before closing, I may point out yet another aspect. By order dated 30.08.2010, this Court had clearly pointed out that the payment would be made to the petitioners in their bank account as both the parents have died. This bank account was clearly disclosed to the University and is also mentioned in the writ petition. This observation was made by this Court in view of the fact that University had wrongly attempted to deposit the amount in the closed dead account of late parents of the petitioners. Petitioners point out that even though almost two months have gone by University has not taken steps to rectify the situation and the result is that they are still deprived of the money. In view of the aforesaid, I direct that the total amount - 5 - along with interest must be paid by the University within one month of production of a copy of this order before the Finance Officer of the University into the credit of the account of the petitioners, which is already disclosed to the University and is mentioned in the writ petition. It would be the responsibility of the Finance Officer to ensure this payment. Interest would also liable to be paid over the delayed payment of encashment as well which ought to have been paid in the year 2005 itself but it is now being tendered after five years. This disposes of the writ petition. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)