IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2408 of 2007 CHITTRANJAN PRASAD SINHA, S/O LATE NIRANJAN PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-EKTARA, P.O.-EKTARA, P.S.-AREAR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI, A SUPERANNUATED LECTURER FROM RAS NARAYAN COLLEGE, PANDAUL, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI, A CONSTITUENT UNIT OF L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. …………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS VICE- CHANCELLOR, 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, RAS NARAYAN COLLEGE, PANDAUL, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. …………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 7 08.09.2009 Petitioner had filed this writ application as retirement benefit matter praying therein for issuance of a direction to the respondents for payment of his dues under different heads as mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of the writ application. During the pendency of the writ application the claims of the petitioner have been considered and settled and an amount of Rs.33,649/- has been paid to the petitioner towards his pre- retiral dues and an amount of Rs.95,636/- has been paid to him towards his post-retiral dues which is evident from communication sent to the petitioner contained in letter dated 30.4.2009 annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 2 filed an I.A. for amendment in the main writ application with liberty to challenge the allegedly wrong fixation made by the University authorities in the matter of his pre-retiral dues and consequential wrong calculation of his post-retiral dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had sought information from the University authorities under the RTI Act with regard to the basis for fixation of his pre-retiral dues. In reply to that the petitioner was informed vide Annexure-8 that his pre-retiral dues have been calculated in terms of orders passed by this Court in CWJC No. 5859 of 1996. Apparently, by applying the judgment of the said case, the respondents have shifted the date of appointment and his consequential promotions to the post of Lecturer and thereby have made the admissible scale applicable in the case of the petitioner from prospective dates. This has obviously resulted into pecuniary loss to the petitioner and fixation of his pay scale and salary in the scales from subsequent dates than from the dates the petitioner claims for the same. Obviously, a prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and he has suffered civil consequences by way of pecuniary loss in respect of his entitlements. 3 There is nothing on record, nor the learned counsel for the University asserts that prior to this fixation of pay scale of the petitioner for calculation of his pre-retiral dues on the basis of re-fixation of dates of promotion in terms of the orders of this Court passed in the said CWJC No. 5859 of 1996, any notice was given to the petitioner and he was given any opportunity to show that either the order passed in the said case was made not applicable to his case or even in terms of the orders of this Court passed in the said case, no adverse decision in the matter of his date of promotion or revision of his pay scale and entitlements was required to be taken. In the circumstances, solely on account of admitted violation of Principles of Natural Justice, this Court could quash the communication sent to the petitioner vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, but for the fact that under that calculation also the petitioner has been paid some dues. It may be pointed out that order passed in CWJC No. 5859 of 1996 also, this Court has given liberty to the concerned incumbents to file representation for claiming for correction in the dates of promotion, grant of pay scale, entitlements and calculation of dues on the basis of their initial date of 4 appointment satisfying the authorities that their appointment was perfectly legal, valid and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out the Hon’ble Chancellor has also issued direction to the authorities to issue show cause notice to all the teachers, before applying the orders passed by this Court in the said CWJC No. 5859 of 1996, and only after receipt of the show cause, to make final calculation and take a final decision in the mater. As said earlier there has been a violation of Principles of Natural Justice in this case, but since the petitioner has received some amount even on the basis of some wrong fixation, it is appropriate that the petitioner is given liberty to file a representation before the Vice-Chancellor in the matter by enclosing all the documents in support of his case and claim that he was entitled to consideration of his services for the purpose of his entitlements on the basis of his initial date of appointment. In case such a representation is filed by the petitioner within one month from today, Vice- Chancellor of the University shall consider the same, shall examine all the documents produced by the petitioner and, if necessary, shall also give a 5 personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter shall pass final orders. In case, he finds that the fixation made by the University earlier requires modification, he shall issue necessary orders in that respect and on that basis a fresh calculation of entitlement of the petitioner shall be made and amount which becomes due to the petitioner towards his pre-retiral as well as post-retiral entitlements shall be paid to him immediately. The Vice- Chancellor shall complete this exercise within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and shall also pass all consequential orders within that very period. With above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)