NAND LAL MANDAL Vs. TIKAMANJHI BHAGALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent Tilkamanjhi University, Bhagalpur. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11755 of 2005 (Nand Lal Mandal vs. Tilkamanjhi University & Ors.). The writ petition has been filed in the year 2005 for a direction to the Respondent University to make payment to the petitioner of his entire retiral benefits and other admissible dues. There was a further claim for payment of interest on the same.

(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition the Court had directed the Respondent University to dispose off the pending representation which has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioner and others. It appears that by order dated 29.6.2008 the said representation stood disposed off by them and the petitioner's earlier promotion given in the year 1981 was held to be unsustainable and in that view of the matter, the salary etc. payable to the petitioner was found to be payable only for the post of Class-IV and not for the promotional Class-Ill post. Finally, the writ petition came to be disposed off by the order under appeal on 3.9.2008 by which the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 29.6.2008 in an appropriate proceeding. With regard to his claim of retiral benefits having been paid after more than two years. 10% interest has been allowed on the same,

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant points out that there are several infirmities in the order dated 29,6.2008 both on facts as well as in law by which his claim for Class-Ill post has been negated. He submits that the order is also self-contradictory inasmuch as on the one hand it is stated that the University was neither empowered to appoint nor create a post prior to the approval by the State, whereas on the other hand, the contention was that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Class-Ill under staffing pattern which was not a sanctioned one by the Principal of the College who was not the competent authority for the said purpose. He points out that other persons similarly situated, who were junior to him, have been granted such approval of promotion which was regularised by the University. According to him, in the case of the petitioner and two other persons the same has been denied only on the ground that their promotion could not be regularised as they did not prefer to follow the procedure as adopted by the University for the purpose. He submits that the post to which the appellant was promoted comes under the staffing pattern and, as such, the bogey of there being no sanctioned post is not sustainable. He also submits that the other three persons whose promotions were regularised were juniors to the appellant. With regard to his promotion being made by the Principal, he submits that during the period when he was so promoted the Vice-Chancellor had delegated such power to the Principal of the College concerned, though it was subject to approval by the Vice-Chancellor.