RAM BIHARI SINGH Vs. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, who retired on 28th February 2001 from the post of ploughman from Irrigational Research Centre, Bikramganj (Rohtas) under Rajendra Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University '), is aggrieved on account of non - release of the amount of G.P.F., group insurance, differential salary on account of revision of pay with effect from 1.4.1997 and consequential fixation of pension etc.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that initially the petitioner was temporary employee of Agriculture Department of the Government of Bihar. Later, on creation of the University, his service was transferred under the University. According to the case of the petitioner, he was absorbed in the University service in the year 1997 and prior to that he was employee of Agriculture Department. This fact has been seriously disputed by the State Government.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel, prior to the office order dated 28th July, 1986 of the Vice - Chancellor of the University, contained in Annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the State Government directed to revert back some of such employees to the Government service but despite written notice given by the petitioner pursuant to the said provisions for reverting back to the Government service, he was never communicated with any decision on it and continued to work in the University since his transfer under the provisions of the Ordinance, later converted into Act creating the University and his service finally stood transferred to the University and availed all benefits, including the benefit of 60 years of the age of superannuation which in the Government is 58 years. However, according to the learned counsel, the University continued to commit mistake in depositing the amount of G.P.F. and the group insurance deducted from the salary of all such employees, including the salary of the petitioner in the Government Treasury. He, thus, submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits admissible to the University employees, including in regard to the G.P.F. and group insurance etc.