IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4404 of 2007 SATYADEO NARAYAN SINGH, S/O LATE RAMAVATAR ROY, R/O VILLAGE-MATIHANI, P.O.-MATIHANI, P.S.-MATIHANI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI, A SUPERANNUATED UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR FROM A.P.S.M. COLLEGE, BARAUNI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI, A CONSTITUENT UNIT OF L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS VICE- CHANCELLLOR, L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 3. THE REGISTRAR, L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 4. THE FINANCE OFFICER, L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, A.P.S.M. COLLEGE, BARAUNI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. 6. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 7. THE REGISTRAR, B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 8. THE FINANCE OFFICER, B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 9. THE PRINCIPAL, L.N. COLLEGE, BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 7 08.09.2009 The petitioner had filed this writ application lebelling the same as for retirement benefits. The details of the dues of the petitioner as claimed by him have been given in paragraph no. 1 of the writ application. This Court, by a general order dated 30.7.2008, had directed the respondents to calculate and pay all the admitted dues of the petitioner in a particular manner within fixed time. The said order was not complied with and, therefore, suo motu contempt was also initiated in the matter vide order dated 12.1.2009. Subsequently a counter affidavit has been filed in the case by 2 the Registrar of the University, stating that the dues of the petitioner have been calculated and, as per the calculation of the University, an amount of Rs.3,95,884 is payable to the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the requisition has been sent to the State Government for release of that amount to the University vide Annexure-B dated 14.2.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the calculation of the petitioner has been made on the basis of judgment of this Court passed in CWJC No. 5859 of 1996. But, he submits that, before applying the said judgment in the case of the petitioner, the respondents have not given any notice nor any information to the petitioner as to why that judgment is applicable in the case of the petitioner. He submits that the respondents have not at all applied their mind that the petitioner was initially appointed in 1970 and, therefore, the said judgment was not applicable in the case of the petitioner. He submits that had the respondents given an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause notice to explain the situation the petitioner would have explained the respondents to their satisfaction that the said judgment was not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner. 3 There is nothing on record to show that before fixation of the entailments of the petitioner, by applying the said judgment, which has resulted into adverse civil consequences to the petitioner by way of monetary loss, any show cause was given to the petitioner in the matter. Learned counsel for the University is also not in a position to satisfy this Court that the Principles of Natural Justice was complied with in the case. In the circumstances, the said fixation and calculation was fit to be quashed, but for the fact that on the basis of the same a requisition has been sent to the State Government for payment of certain amount to the petitioner. Therefore, without quashing that fixation, as evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to file a representation for re-consideration of fixation of his pre-retiral as well as post-retiral entitlements in accordance with law and to satisfy them that the said judgment passed in the said CWJC No. 5859 of 1996 is not applicable in his case. If the representation is filed within one month from today, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within three months 4 thereafter. It goes without saying that in case the representation of the petitioner finds favour with the Vice-Chancellor of the University and he is satisfied that the entitlements of the petitioner is required to be re-calculated, he shall get it done within that very period and shall also pass consequential orders for payment of any other amount due to the petitioner on account of such fixation. So far as amount of Rs.3,95,884/- is concerned, the same has been admitted by the University as payable to the petitioner. The only stand of the University towards payment of the said amount to the petitioner is that requisition for aforesaid amount has been sent to the State Government. However, it is not disputed that recently a large amount of money has been released by the State Government a couple months back for payment of dues of its employees. Therefore, without awaiting for specific release of fund in relation to this requisition contained in memo dated 14.2.2009 in respect of the petitioner, the respondent University is directed to pay the said amount to the petitioner from the fund received from the State Government recently within a period 5 of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)