IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4966 of 2008 *** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. *** 1. Pushpa Das, W/O late L.K. Das 2. Anamika Anju, D/o late L.K. Das. 3. Nivedita Nutan, D/o late L.K. Das. 4. Shartendu Saurabh, S/o late L.K. Das. 5. Shailendra Saurabh, S/o late L.K. Das. All are residents of Mohalla Hanuman Nagar, M.I.G.-241, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, District Patna……………………………………………………………………Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner – cum - Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Commissioner – cum - Secretary, Higher Education, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Patna University through the Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, Patna University, Patna. 5. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna. 6. The Director-cum-Head of the Department, Population Research Centre, Department of Statistics, Patna University, Patna. 7. Sri J.P.Singh, the Additional Director, Population Research Centre, Department of Statistics, Patna University, Patna. 8. The Planning Officer, Patna University, Patna……………………………………………………………….Respondents ------- For Petitioners: Mr. Keshav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate For University: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate *** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH *** O R D E R J.N. Singh, J. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2 Petitioners are family members and heirs of late Lalit Kumar Das, who was functioning as an Analyst in the Population Research Centre attached to the Department of Statistics under the control of Patna University. They have challenged the order of the University as contained in Annexure-15 by which said Mr. Das was compulsorily retired by the University in terms of Section 64(B) of the Patna University Act, 1976. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of this writ application, petitioner no.1 Pushpa Das died and her name was expunged, vide order dated 25.07.2009. The ground of compulsory retirement of Mr. Das, as appearing from the impugned order, is that the Joint Director of the Centre had reported that Mr. Das was not mentally and physically fit in performing his duties. Materials show that on such report of the Joint Director, notice was issued to the said Mr. Das which he replied. However, the impugned order does not show that his reply was at all considered. It shows that only on the basis of the report, the order of his compulsory retirement was passed. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that after coming to know 3 about the impugned order, said Mr. Das suffered a stroke and ultimately expired on 13.11.2007 i.e. within two months of passing of the impugned order. University has filed a counter affidavit in this case. The stand is that the said Mr.Das was not performing his duties in the Centre properly which matter the Additional Director reported, on the basis of which he was compulsorily retired after due notice to him. Had Mr. Das been compulsorily retired on the ground that he was not giving any output and was not performing his duties at all, duly supported by reliable facts, figures and data, the same could be considered as a valid ground for his compulsory retirement. But the report of the Joint Director was that said Mr. Das was not mentally and physically fit to perform his duties. This finding of incapacity of a person and being mentally and physically unfit cannot be given by a layman. If this was being taken as a ground for compulsory retirement of Mr. Das, the University ought to have constituted a Medical Board, ought to have taken an expert opinion and then only ought to have proceeded in the matter in 4 accordance with law. The University has in a blind-folded manner acted on the report of the Joint Director that Mr.Das was mentally and physically unfit, which the Joint Director as a layman was not competent to hold on his subjective satisfaction and on his personal observation. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure-15, therefore, is unsustainable in law. The same is, accordingly, quashed. Since Mr.Das had expired on 13.11.2007, the University is directed to consider Mr.Das as having died in harness while working under the University and give his heirs all the benefits, as may be admissible in law to the heirs and dependents of a deceased employee dying during service. All the necessary orders in this regard must be passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This writ application is thus allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Patna High Court, Patna The 2nd December, 2011 N.A.F.R. (B.T.) (Jayanandan Singh, J.)