GOPAL PRASAD Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2/ J.P. University, Saran at Chapra and Sri Rajendra Kumar Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5/ B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.The present writ petition was initially filed in the year 2007 with a prayer to direct the respondents to make payment of his retiral dues.

(2.) In the writ petition a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 wherein it was indicated that difference of pension amount for the period September, 1999 to July, 2005 was paid to the petitioner, gratuity was determined at Rs. 81,791/- out of which Rs. 40,953/-was adjusted towards excess payment earlier received and balance amount of Rs. 40,838/- was paid to the petitioner through cheque dated 7.3.2008. Similarly leave encashment amount in lieu of 107 days was found admissible to the tune of Rs. 17,680/- out of which Rs. 15,280/-was adjusted towards excess payment earlier received by the petitioner and balance amount to the tune of Rs. 2,400/-was paid to the petitioner vide cheque dated 7.3.2008.

(3.) It is not in dispute that amount of group insurance as well as P.F. with up to date interest was paid to the petitioner in the year 2002 itself. During the pendency of the writ petition an Interlocutory Application was filed by the petitioner on 20.12.2010 vide I.A. No. 10530 of 2010 whereby a prayer was made to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 1,11,003/- which was recovered from post retiral dues of the petitioner. The petitioner has also brought on record as Annexure-1 to the Interlocutory Application a letter issued under the Right to Information Act issued by the Public Information Officer of the J.P. University, which makes it clear that recovery order for Rs. 1,11,003/- was passed by the authority concerned after filing of the writ petition. The said amount was recovered on the plea that petitioner had worked for more than one year ten months and one day after the date of his retirement and as such the pay which was received by the petitioner for that period was recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner.