IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.398 of 2007 1. SMT.HEMLATA w/o Dr. Brahmanand Prasad 2. Shri Alok Kumar Prasad s/o late Dr. Brahmanand Prasad 3. Shri Vivekanand Prasad s/o late Dr. Brahmanand Prasad All are residents of ‘Ram Bhawan’ New Dak Bungalow Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna – 800001, District Patna …. Appellants – Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Higher Education Dept., Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna 3. Registrar, Patna University, Patna ….. Respondents … Respondents ----------- For the appellants : Appellant No. 2 in person (Sri Alok Kumar Prasad) For the Patna University: Mr. Ajay Kr. Sinha, Advocate ------ 4 20.12.2010 Heard the parties. This L.P.A. arises out of judgment and order dated 6.4.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5703 of 2006 (Smt. Hemlata & ors. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.). By the same order under appeal some other writ petitions were also disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Vice Chancellor or the Chancellor of the University in terms of Sub Section (4) of Section 10 of the Patna University Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the redressal of their grievances. The representation before the 2 Vice Chancellor or the Chancellor, as the case may require, was to be filed within a period of three weeks from the date of the order along with a certified copy of the order and the same was required to be disposed of at the earliest and in any case within the three months from the date of receipt of the representation. It was further directed that if any amount is found due and payable to the petitioners that should be paid within one month after disposal of the representation. The appellants did not avail of that opportunity and preferred to file this Letters Patent Appeal. Appellant no. 2 (Sri Alok Kumar Prasad) has appeared in person to press this appeal. He first submitted that the order under appeal is fit to be set aside because it was passed in absence of counsel for the appellants Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. No doubt, this plea has been taken in paragraph 2(xiii) but neither certificate from the counsel has been annexed in support of such a plea nor the records show any order passed by the Bench on 4.4.2007. On a mentioning slip an order was passed on 4.4.2007 for putting up the case in general list. That order recorded by the concerned Bench Clerk does not have any relevance because the 3 order under appeal was passed on 6.4.2007 when the matter was printed in the list and the order shows that it was passed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. However, nothing much will turn on this issue because we have heard appellant no. 2 on merits. It may be useful to indicate that earlier this appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.5.2007. Against that order the appellants preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 17169/2007. The Apex Court noticed the submissions to the effect that the appellants had not sought permission to withdraw the appeal and such an order has been wrongly recorded by the High Court. In that view of the matter the special leave petition was dismissed on 22.10.2007 with an observation that if the submission is correct then it would be open for the appellants to move the High Court by filing a review petition. Thereafter the appellants preferred Civil Review No. 221 of 2007, which was dismissed on 20th February, 2008. The appellants then again approached the Supreme Court, which allowed Civil Appeal No. 8500 of 2009 and after setting aside the order dated 20th February, 2008 passed in this Letters Patent Appeal 4 directed for hearing the appeal on merits. On merits, it has been submitted before us that quantum of family pension fixed by the University was erroneous and arbitrary. According to the appellants the quantum of family pension should have been more and the appellants should be paid family pension as well as its arrears accordingly. Our attention was drawn to a chart of calculation contained in Annexure 8 to rejoinder to counter affidavit in which re-calculation of payable amount appears to be on the basis of fixation of pay in revised U.G.C. scales, if it is allowed by the University. Thus, the claim of the appellants is that their pay has to be notionally revised as per U.G.C. scale if admissible to them and on that basis their family pension needs to be revised as per law. Learned counsel for the University has taken the stand that in respect of claims involving calculation of revised pay scale and financial benefits like family pension it would be prudent to ask the concerned authorities to re-look into the matter on the basis of representation, which may be filed by the appellants along with their calculation chart as contained in Annexure 8 5 along with a copy of this order. He has no objection if the time limit fixed by the learned Single Judge is extended and made operational from today. Considering the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that claim of the appellants for re-fixing quantum of family pension in the light of their claim for notional U.G.C. scale requires to be reconsidered by the authorities of the University. For that purpose appellants are granted liberty to file a fresh representation along with chart of calculation along with a copy of this order, within four weeks. If such representation is filed on behalf of the appellants, the same shall be considered by the Vice Chancellor or authorities designated by him in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Spd/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)