RAJENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 30.11.1992 from St. Columba's College, Hazaribag, a constituent college under the respondent- Vinoba Bhave University. He had come before this Court earlier in W.P.C. No. 5070 of 2002 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.2.2007 directing the respondents to decide upon his representation with regard to his claim of remaining amount of retirement dues within stipulated period (Annexure-1). Petitioner has again moved this Court in the present writ petition showing details of the outstanding dues in para 3 of the writ petition, which is quoted herein below:-

(2.) THE State Government was directed to release the payment in favour of the petitioner in relation to the arrears of pension from 1.1.1996 to 15.11.2000 and D.D.A up to March, 2007, since funds were not released by the State to the University for making payment to the petitioner.

(3.) AFTER filing of the supplementary counter affidavit by the Respondent- State showing release of payment of the admissible arrears as indicated herein above totaling Rs. 3,80, 100 to the petitioner, on the request of the counsel for the petitioner the matter has been adjourned on a couple of occasions to enable him to file his rejoinder but today also no rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the said amount. Counsel for the petitioner, however, orally submits that in the calculation of D.D.A., there is some discrepancy with the amount recommended by the Principal of the said college to what has been actually paid. He has further submitted that there is lacunae in calculation of the arrears of pension amount which approximately is Rs. 43,2000.00. However, learned counsel for the Vinoba Bhave University submits that the recommendation of the Principal is not binding upon the University in respect of a constituent college and the University has ascertained the legally admissible dues which have been paid to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner, who retired in the year 1992 has earlier moved this Court, where after a reasoned order dated 17.3.2008 has been passed by the respondent- University, which is not under challenge in the present writ petition. On perusal of the said order it appears that the admissible amount comes to Rs. 3,80,100.00, which is shown to have been paid by the respondent- State through their supplementary counter affidavit. The same has not been rebutted by way of rejoinder by the petitioner.