SRI KRISHNA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr. A. Allam, J.C. to G.A. represents the State of Jharkhand.

(2.) MR . M.S. Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of filing of the writ petition, he had indicated at paragraph 16 of the writ petition that the petitioner had to retire in the month of February, 2002, meaning thereby from the State of Jharkhand. He has further submitted that the college where the petitioner was working was an affiliated college of the University but it is aided by the Government. Mr. M.S. Anwar also submits that after superannuation, he has received only the Provident Fund amount and a portion of the Gratuity. He submits that he is entitled to the difference of salary on the post of Reader with effect from 1.2.1985 to 28.2.1999 and from 14.6.1999 till the date of retirement i.e. 28.2.2002 in the scale of University Professor. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was also given promotion on the post of University Professor and therefore, he is entitled to the aforesaid difference of salary in the post of University Professor also.

(3.) THE aforementioned last submission of Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the respondent is rejected outright in as much as the petitioner retired after 15.11.2000 i.e. after the appointed day from a college which is situated within the territory of the State of Jharkhand. The Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 has already taken care and has protected the interest of the State of Jharkhand in view of Clause 3 to the VIII Schedule. In other words, the State of Jharkhand can very well claim the difference upon finalization of the matter relating to assets and liabilities. However, such an act should not come in the way of a pensioner in receiving his pension and he should not be made to await for such adjustment. Consequently, the State of Jharkhand shall do the needful and if it feels that it is the State of Bihar which should have borne the liability, then it may make necessary claims, but after making the payments.