SHEO NATH PRASAD Vs. BIRSA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to revise the petitioner's pension in accordance with the last pay drawn by him on the date of his retirement in the scale of pay of Rs. 3700 -5700/ - and for an order directing the respondents to modify the Pension Order No. 3089 dated 11.9.2002 (Annexure 10) issued under the signature of respondent No. 3 considering the time bound promotion of the petitioner as allowed from 1.9.1985 in stead of 31.8.1992.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: The petitioner was a permanent employee of Birsa Agriculture University, Kanke, Ranchi. He retired from the post of Assistant Director (Administration) on 30.1.1993. His candidature was considered by the Evaluation Committee constituted in accordance with Clause 17.2(a) of the Statute of the University and by its resolution dated 19.3.1990 the Evaluation Committee recommended for the petitioner's time bound promotion in the pre revised scale of Rs. 1200 -1900 w.e.f 1.9.1985. The Board of Management accepted the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee and by resolution adopted at its meeting held on 23.10.1990, a decision was taken to grant time bound promotion to the petitioner. Pursuant to the decision, a notification was issued vide memo No. 3723 dated 31.10.1990 under the signature of the Vice Chancellor under which the petitioner was granted time bound promotion in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 -50 -1300 -6 -1900 with effect from 1.9.1985. In terms of the resolution of the Finance Department of the State Government dated 30.12.1981, the revised pay scale of the petitioner on his promotion was fixed at Rs. 3700 -5700/ - and on the date of his retirement, the last pay drawn by him on 31.10.1993 was in the scale of Rs. 3700 -5700.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order of cancellation of his time bound promotion w.e.f 1.9.1985, as being illegal arbitrary, mala fide and violative of the principles of natural justice, since prior to taking such decision long after his retirement, no notice was served on him.